A defence of infant-baptism in answer to two treatises, and an Appendix to them concerning it, lately published by Mr. Jo. Tombes : wherein that controversie is fully discussed ...

^ P-RINCETON. N. J. J>

Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa.

Agncw Coll. on Baptism, No.

SCJB

♦♦♦♦♦»♦♦♦♦♦♦»♦♦♦♦»♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦»♦♦♦♦♦»♦♦♦

DEFENCE

INt^VNT-BAPTISM :

I N

Anlwer totwoTreatifes^ and an Ap-
pendix to them concerning it ^

Lately ipublifhed by Mx.Jo.Tombes.

Wherein that Controverfie as fully

dilcuffed5thc gncient and generally received
uft of it from the Apoftles daycs,imtill the Ana-

^baptifts (prung up in Germanj^mzmk^cd*

The Arguments for it from the holy Scrip-
tures .maintained, ^nd the objeftiohs againft

\

X

z

it anlwered.

• By Stevcn'Marlhd/lB.D. Minifter of the Gofpell,

The pTcmifek made toj/cn and {oyourCkildreny Afl»>* jy.
Qng. Na^TM^ewti.

t

z

^ Hoc fviz-iiiGinriuoi baptlfitwj Ecclcfu ftmprr habiiir, fcmper tenuit ; hoc a
'^) majorum iidc acccpir^ hoc ufquc in hnc»t) p- ftvcranrcr cuftodir,/4«^^.

2 1 — ^ . . — '■ ^

♦I Printed at Lmdm bj Kie. Cgtej^ for Snven B9:»ieU, and aw to bee
J^l ibid at his Shop, at the Bible inVofts-htad AUej^l 646. ^ ^

||?.V|^f|^f|^f|^tf^^^^^^

TO THE

Reverend AfTembly cl* -D^^

and Commiffioners ot the CftutCh t^/^^%

Scotland nov^ dtUDg^tWefiminpri^ ^^

/:

Reverend Sirs,

Hereon all of yon in generail dri
gj eowerned^andfome of you par^
ficularly named in the Bvoke I
deal mthj the u orld might hap-
pily ha<ve expeSied a joint- en^
dea^our^ where there was a common intereU :
T/w/ 1 therefore (whilft yon are otherwife
fully employed) pwuld undertake this taske^ I
deftre may not bee imputed by you or any to an
0'z/er7(Peenmg conceipt of mine own abilities:
for had it faSen tojome of your lots^ IJhould
ha^e hoped the Cljurch of QjrtP^ might haz^e
reaped more fruit, then it i^ liJ^e to doe by my
, f00re and weake endea<i/ours^ But ^y perfo-
nail ingagement to ajfcrtthat truth of God
• which! fjad held forth in a Printed Sermon^

^^

whii^

The Epiftlc

which m> Learned Ant4gmi0 Cf^ffi^g i>y

Hher booties written by other men on the fame,

argument) was pleafed to ftngle out to combat e

withy and to layout his ftrength upon^ hath

called me forth to Jiand Hp in this controver-^

fiCy not as your Champion^bnt as an affeSti^-

nate friend to i he truth^ whii h we are all cat-

J"'^^^- led upon earnefily to contend for '-^ in Tl^hich

confitSi as I cannot but fear e that y oh will ^4-

fily difco<ver my weal^nejfei fo I cannot but

hope that you will notjinde me either fo foiled

by mine adverfaryy ordefertedby God^whofe

canfeJ pleady as not toha<ve fufjiciently an-^

MrMn Gocd- f^^^^d that bookg^ which hath obtained to bee

r^ins anfwer called in frtut^ Thc ftrongeft Shield and

wiTdsQan^r. BuckleF whcrcwith that caule was ever

PfUV^.s! protc^cd i hut in Salem God of old brah^

both Sword and Shield^ and if be hath done

the lik^ now J the weah^ hand which het'hath

made ufe of ferret h onely to point at that

might ie arme ofhis^ which hath gotten him*

felfethe 7/i^ory. Truths trinmph and^the

Churches peace I ha^e had in mine eye^ WH

}>a<ve defired to carry meehjteffe and U^e e*ven

to him^whofe opinion 1 fght with^ all along

in my heart and pen : what ever meajun my

former

Dedicatory.

former writing wet with from him^ I have
endeaz/oredto loo kg upon bis with a neither
hloodjhot nor Ivftte eye ; paffion blinds tlje one^
and pride makes the other oftMmes overlook^
that truth which a lowly eyefeeth clearly at a
nearer diflance : fure I amy the wrath of man
work^th not the righteoufnejife ofGod^ whilji /imes j so.
the meekg been^ili guide in judgement^ ^^^ ?u]2<.
teach his way. V^hat herein God hath ina^
hied me to doe y I willingly fubmit to the Chur-
ches cenfure^ and humbly prefent to you , not
as any way worthy ofyou^ but onely as a pub^
lich^ teJHmony of my reverence and gratitude
for all the refrejhings ofjpirit^ and that abun-
dance effpiritnall grace I have found from
the hand of God^ whilfi I have had the hap^
fineffet^JitamongyoHifor a yet more phnti^
fuUeffufion where4>fupdnyou^to the happy fet-
ling dt lenph ofthefe dijiraBed Churches in
truth and peact^is the prayer of

JfrlU t. Your unworthy brothcih,wid

164^. fcrvant in chc Lords vrdrk

Steven MarJhdM,

A Table of Scriptures vindicated

and explained.

ri^^* 17.P.105145 p-p2.

^^ Deut. -^0.6.^.1 28. I>^»r.23«3. vindicated3p.i45^

Bfaj 1 9. 34. explained, 2 io.

£:/4y44. 2>p.l28 Efay^^.ii. p. 128.

(iMalac, 2.15:. vindicated, p. I5<^

c^4^. 28. explained and anfwered> p. 209,2 2^,^^^^

cJW^r. 10. vindicated, p. 221 ^(fhn 15. 2. p^. i38»

J0S 2 . 3 8, 39. vindicated, p. 1 24. Proves InfanA-

baptifmeby conftquence, p. 218.
Affs 15. 10. explained and vindicated, p. 217.
u^^/ !p. 5 .^.vindicated, p. ^p.
Rdm,ix. 6. vindicated, p. "l^^I- \ - ;-
iCpr,-]. i4vvirtdicateid,p. 14? >%5^ 154^1^^75 (^^

m3i.intained againft,pa48. Verfei7,p.i5i. vet"*

34. vindicated, p. 1 5 !•
I Cor. 16. J, 4. explained, p. 199. z Cfin j* ic^
^vindiiated, t88i"' '.^^'^ ^^•••;-'^--^ -^-^Vn\^ -^^^X
Gal 3. 27,28. opened;plM8)^.\AHi^.l5t<*i\ It^.-^i.tX
Ephef. 6. 1, 2. cxplained,p. 200. . ...^'v „. ,h,-
Colfflf. 2 . 8, ^5 10. vindicated, p. 1 6p, 1 74, H^f, 8,

vindicaj:e4yi83. * s'V»v

1 riw», 4. J* vindicated^ p^ i J2. " >^^ ;> ^

^v.f\\'

> i

Kf.

^Vt

A Table of Authors cited or vindicated, atid other

materiall things cited in this Trcatilbw

tnaj be ohained without i/^p. 52,50.
Wbethir it mty be repeated^p.^y^^S,
Saceeeds Gircnmcifion^ p. 1 64, Pa^
raUelled with it^ip,id{'^. In ufe among
the lew jy and i^ptyed to Infants at
Tvell as to men^ 1 70. ffow it may be
pleaded^ p. ^^^,

Beza cited againH his ownt judgt'
ment^p, 1 47, 150.

Bal&mdn vindicated^ P* 3 1 j3 2 .

Bayne vmdicstedi p. i o r^i o2 . '

Berengarius no Anabaptifi^ p. ^ 5 •
C

CateGhumeni,p. 50.

Chryfofiome mt baptized in his Ja-
fancy, p. 27. vindicated, p 1 77.

Circumcifion^ n'omen not c^pabk of
^h P- 93' ^^^^^J the fpirituall part of
theCovenant^ p. ^S, Baptifme fue^
ceeds f/5.p.i64. ParalUled'rpith&ap^
tifme^ p. 1.45. Why ChriH wot cir-^
cHmcifedandbaptized^p. i6%JHy
Jeives infants circUmcifed, paSo.
Hoof thi Jews received it^ p. 182.

Chriftianity how it may bee calkd a
birthright ^p,iig, .

Chamlcr often cited to no purpofi^i^S.
A^ainfi his owne judgment^ p. 147.

Co^nftantine M. whynotbaptizjtd in
hit infancy ^p^l*}, ;U*ii .^

Cottjon viodieat^^p. it^yHttt^ith
rO Mr.

ABrahanvi[?e Covenant with him
no m^re ndxt then with us-^p.^j*
Profilytes were his feedylQO» Sawere
civiU Judiciaries reputed^ p. loi,
1 04.

Adcodatus why not baptized in his in^
pnty^p.j^S,

Alipias why not hjiptizedin his infan-
cyj Ainfworth, p» 1 7 1 .

Albigenfes no Ansbaptijis^ p. 64,

Anabaptifts mt like the Non^Confir-
milij^p,j2. Zheir ancimt errours
nen>Iy firing up againe^ p. 73 . Op-
pofed Mjgiftracy ^ P* 75* ^*^ ^^
difftrtnce between Infants oj Chrifti-
ans andTurk^Sy p. 86387.

Arsthis vindicated ^ P**75* Proves
Baptifme to fncded Circttmcifion by
the Ancients^ p. 1 76 .

Athanafius mentions Infam-haptifmey

p. 2C.

Hdga^mtvindioated^ p» 43» &c. Why
not baptized in hvs infancy^ P'4^?

47-

B
Ball vindicated^ p, 6.
Baltazzar Lydius, p. 64,
Baptifiils eaUed a new birth hy the

Scripture; and the Ancients^ p. 12.

Ancitmty deferred^ p^ 22. Salvation

The TabU.

circumcifed^ p. i8o. Ifhuher 7«w
fdnts may be faid to hie beleever/^ p,
i J I. Op(ghi i§ be baptized tbuugh r^e
k^ow not tb^ tbtj bane grace ^ p. 2 3 2 .
H^yp ihcir Bapti/mt is commanded
i«Matth.28. p. 207, Capable ofibe
grace whereof Baptijme if afignty p.
21^, 224,2ad.
Infant- baptifhie^ Antiqititf of it vhi-
dicattdy p. 7, f^c. p. 44,45. Epifco-
pacjnot fo ancient at it^ p. 8. J^bj
fime Ancitnts fpeak^ not of it^ p. j ^,
Athanafius, p 2 o. Andb) Epipha-
niiis, p. 2 1545. ^of difpnvid be-
caufe of quefiiompHt to the partj that
TV as to he baptized^ p. 2jl • &e, Gro-
tiiis HQt to he relyed upon in it^ p. jp^
The Greek, Chnrcb received if^ p. 3 2 ,
j4fft rted by TertulJian, P- 3 5 • A^d
Cyprian,p.38,39. &c. By Augii-
ftine3p,43.€^c. "By Fiilgenti»s^p!50
How it it caUed atradiiiim , p. 44,
Wh) not mentiomd in Cottnceh before
that of Cartlvagej p. 49. Ssill ac-
howled^tdin the Chnrcb, p. 6^. 7le
nyeCiiRg of it not the way to K^formj-
tioHy p. 76. Example J of it by confe-
qtttnee^ p. 21 8. "Noi a Will rporfinp-y
p, 195 ,2 2 5 ► BeiiifitJ of hifajit-hap"
tifmey^6. No occjfiun of bttmcmt
inventions^ &t\Tt^l.
]ohnB?,pti^ initiated to theCbrifihn
\igitrted by the Ancienu, p. 1 4^ • ^^' c^, p. 1 7 1 .

I Ircn«iTS vindicated^ p. i o^ 1 1^1 2. > '

Infints /^i5f« intocovenjm with their Juftine Martyi^ vindicattd, 9^ lo./.
Fa^inf/y,iQ*y,oJ^beUeverjleftbyMr. , L .mv -i'\

Tomb^stobeunderthe^^^vilskj^g" LudoyicasVhcsexamimd.p.^j^^^,
d9me:,p^ii2* ^^hy Jemjb /w/j«// ' Lwds-day^p. 8o^8rj82. Fnned ^j

€mife»

Mr. Rutherford reconciledyp. 1 23 .

Cyprian vindicated^ p. 38. &c.

Coyenznt and Seal conne^iei together ^
p. 89, lyhat if meant by being in
the Covenant^ p. 89. Covenant of
grace aba? ay rs one and f be fame, p. 97.
Infants tjk^it2t9 the Covenant with
ibeirTdrentSip- 105. Men may bee
mtder it feverall rvayej^p, 106. Fri-
vikdges of them who arennder the ex*
temaM Covenant ^ p. 1 08 . A^j ixter-
nail right to it pr^ed^ p . 1 40. The
fromife in it not peculiar to Abraham
p. 127. D

Difcijf^cSj Tphat h is to msihiDifciples^

p, 2i>j2J352l43&C.

E
Epiphanius mentions infant-haptifme^

p. 21,45- ^

Seed of Fle(h whai,pJOi»

G
Goodmnvindiiiatedj p. i43'
Grotmsnottohee relyed onahout in*
fatit-baptifme:, p. 29. Mifnports

iheGr^ekS^tirch, p. 32333,34.
Qoipdhorv iirnditianahy p. 23^.

H

U^icVahk Story.p.yi,

Hcnriciis Stephanus mif recited:, p.

Holiiicffe derivative and inherent not
ofedi p. X4I. Fed.rall bolinejfe

The Table,

Comparijon kivcecn ivitknca forrt^&

Lords Supper not eaten kj nnhaptized

N
Na2ianzeni^i«<j//>«/f^3p-l8. not baf»

tizid in his Infancy ^^. 26.
Nation ivhen it k to ht reputed Chri-

ftianyp2il.
"^cocxhrczn Ccumell vindicated^ p.

5O531. o

Oiigen vindicated^ p. 1 5 5 1 6^ 1 7.

Parents helemng are roots of their
chUdren.p, 142. . ^

Paireovcr, our Sairament cenies in
pjdofit^p.20^,

Priv Hedges ohtj-^ not flraitmd^ hut
inlargedip. 185. J great ahridgi-
mtnt oj ihem to have ifcr children left
6Hi ^f the Covenant, p. i C3.

Vhoiias Patriarchy p. ^3.

Qiveftions ptit to the baptisfi^d dif
pfijve n9t bapiJjmt.yA I >vay tbtj prove
ii,p.52.

R

Rogers vindicated^ p. 5-

Sclden^p, 1 70.

Stv^hoeXJmined^p.^y.

Sacrament nob it it feales ahfo lately ^
and conditiunallj ^11 J. Horp tb*J are
Sealefy p. 201. our ruh tn admini^
firing ;^t W;p.'2 3 5. hdrp ne may argne
from Jems Sacraments to 0Mrp,p

J^8.20U

Tombcs hit way ofresfink^p. 3 • i oJ"

125.134. Vnjkftlj chargej the Af*

fef»hlj,p*J9. ibinl{efjemi may he fa*

zed out of the communion of the vh

fhle €hurch,p, 8^. He joynej with

Servctus^p. 105, QranH^r^j^i ifjn

controverjie.^p»i 8 J .By conjeauehce di'

ni^j Circumcijiontobee a Jeah of any

thing^p,\%l, makes it a priviledgc

not to have Infant i hap tzfd^ p.lSj,

He mah^j thiCoVinznt Heb 8. to vt

the Covenant of n^ori^/^p* X &8« Mif^

interpret J the 2 Cor. 3. 10, p. l8S.

Leaves all Ir^anis of heleevers to he

under the VeviBs h^gdeme^ p. 1 12.

S^mbolizith mtb Arminius^ p. 144.

compares Friefis and Minifiers to no

purpofiyp. 168. condemnes his oWne

opinion cf Infants conditiimpPn2^^,

Tertulhsinjpeaklfir Infant'Bapiifm^

P«35-
Talmud, p. 17 1.

V
Vines vindicated^p.y g 4
Uilicr de fncceffione Chr, Ecclef^p.^^

Voii\iTbefej,p.6^,6^,

W
WaldcnfeSjp. 64. no Anabafiifis^p^

Hifiorjf p/Waldenfi$:p.^4.

Women not capable of Ciretttncifim%
p.^^.bofpCirffumeifedin the men^
p,94. ifihiy had mi been eftumed
as circHmcifed they oould not hava f#-
tentbe Pa^egver^^%

Errata,

pAge 1 1 o. Line 1 1 . re»d,you will not doe, p. 1 4 4. 1, $ 4 for where r. were p 1 4 5. J- 3 5 .r.*

-t/?r4/?-,p.i57J.i J,<iclenot,p.i64.l22.r/e^H?fMr,p.i65.|.,;.r.part 2. P.167.I 6.r.C<i-

■/f<^^MW<f«/,p.i<73 l^j.r.imputeto youa renfe,p.i7 5.i.i6.r.fo vrifta^;.^^;^;, p 176.I.1 3.

^•fnferimyU6s,tempBri,^A7%X^^A.fatJm^ 199.I.1.

4ckcommaafrerom«i*W,p.2i3.1.I.r.'!1>Dvn p. ^ij-^. 5.r. pn^DlD P i^i-^-
T^r.asfor sa.p,226.1.I9.ferBaptifnieand prayeraUonejr. baptizing into the mmeofde
^athir^ Sonne andbolyGhcfi,iindjpi3LycrA\lor\e,Ui2.iorf his baptilme and prayer was
aj^ one^read^that Andnias his baptizing TauIJnte the name ofchrifi^ or into the mm of ihi
y^ther^ Sonne and holy Ohofljmd Pauls calling upon the name of the LordgWas all one. v ,

it^Vi^^V.) >u

'.^•^c'^^-^-;!'

INFANT -BAPTISME

LATE INNOVA^rQ^^-^':!^
But cleared to bee as Ancient 'a:?^^

is pretended. ^C]^

Received your Book about the time
mentioned by your felf: whick
when I had read over 5 and thereby
perceived how meane an efteem you
had not onely of my Sermon, but of
all other things extant, in defence of
Infant-Baptifine 5 and indeed of all
Men whoie judgement differs from
your owne , and how highly
you value your own performance in this piece : I conclu*
ded you would have no reft in yourfpirit untillitfawthe
light '-i and the rather^ because you fo carneftly prefTe mee
T a call in to my ajjifiance all the reft n>ho are ingaged in this
Cauje yth^t fo you might have an adverlary fit to deale with,
that as a mighty man you might incounterwithan Hoft»
But when after fome friendly conference with you, you de-
clared to me, that if you might enjoy liberty to exercife
your Miniftery, in fome place where you (hould not be put
upon the pradice of baptizing of Infants, you could (yea,

B and

l»fa<it'Baftifme Tio late JnncvMton^

and intimated to me that yon would ) kcepe this Opinion
private to your fclfe , provided cnely , that ifany fhould
preach in your Pulpit for the Baptizing of them , yoii
ftould take your felf bound in the fame place to preach a-
gainft it , otherwife Mens preaching or printing abroad^
riiouldbe no provocation to you. (In hope whereof, my
fclf endeavoured to help you in to the place where now you-
arC) deiirhig the Church might not lofe the benefit of thole
good gifts which God hath bellowed upon you.} And
thereupon I tooke no further thought of any prelent Exa-
mination of your large Treatife, having my hands full of
other employments 3 becaufei I verily thought you would
have fate quietly dowujpreached Chrift^kept your Opinion
to your felf, and not have any farther appeared ( efpecially
at this time) tolacreafe the flame of our Diviiionsand con*
fiifions.

But lince you think itnecelTary to deprive the Infants of
Bcleeversj of that which wee conceive to bee their glorious
priviledge, yea^ andlooke upon all other endeavours of
Reformation, as things which will come to nothing 5 till
this opinion of yours prevaiie (lb dearely are you in love
with your own Babe ) and come out into the field ib bra-
vingly, andgiant-Iike^ to tread Ao^n all who ftand againft
your way: I have (with the Lords alliftance) undertaken
your pompous Treatifeand as farre as my impaired health,
and other Services would permit^indeavoured to bring your
Examtn to thetryall, with as much brevity and cleai'enelTe
as I could poflibly ; and I hope al/b^ with fo much evidence
of truth, that there (hall be no need of a Colledge to make
any fiuther answer un to you. Wherein I (hall not (as you
have done) carpe at every phrafe or exprelTI on, nor digrefle
into impertinent Diftourfes, thereby to fivell up a volume;
jQor amufe the Reader with multitudes of Quotations of
Latine and Greek Authors, and then turn them into En-
gli(h ; nor frame as many ien(cs of an exprcflion as \s polli-
ble, and then conftite them, andfb fight with men of ftraw
of mine own letting up j nor Ipend a whole (beet of Paper
together, in confuting what was never intended by my Ad-

vex'fa-

hut clurtd t0 he as Anciem as it pretended.

verfary, as the Reader fhall clearly perceive you have deak
with nie : but plainly grapple with you, and inliAoncly
upon wha.t properly belongs to the cau(e in hand*

But firft give me leave to obfcrve your defiru&ive Arth
ficc. It is the ^vcwzjw/ way to elude all Texts of Scripture
which are urged again ft theruj if they have been differently
expounded by Learned and Godly men, ancient or modern:
to queftion all conclufions infer'd by consequence from
Scripture: to deride the teftimouies of any of the Ancients,
by di/i:overing the nakedneflejerror^and overfight of thole
Keverendmen: and by making them (elves merry by tur-
ning the Orations, Epiftles, or allufions of the Fathers into
Syliogifmes; andby infer ting of ^r^<7, now and then, to
make all their Rhetoricall palfages feem ridiculous. I ap-
peal to the judicious Readcr,whether this plot be not carri-
ed through your Examen 8cExercitation.ElpeciaIly I obferve
yourmaine faculty to lye in framing ipecious anfivers to
Arguments brought to prove any thing. Your great Argu-
ment in your Exercitation is, if / can anfiiPeraU Arguments
for baptizing Infants^ then&c. And then you form the Ar-
gument into feverall (hapes, and feek to elude th«m5 and
herein I confelTe you are dextrous. The reft of the Argu-
ments wherein you doe aO[ert,orgoe dire£^ly to provcialade
how inconsequent are they, as will appeare when they
come to bee examined. The like cour/e you take in your
Examen:, laying out abundance of ftrength in the anafccun-'
fiicaOputj waving and eluding the dint of an argument,
by difiinHionj and Jeverallfenfes, and finding/ww men of note
tj conflrne a Text other n>a^es^ and the like. So that the Reader
may fee what you doe not like, but he may ftay long enough
before you bring fatisfying arguments to fettle him in that
which you would have^^^h.a\y on have ftartlcd him, in what
you voould not have. But this kind of diiputing never edi-
ties the Church : what one book was ever written by any
of our Divines, even in the great point of Juftiiication, or
Faith; which fome learned andfiibde Papift hath n ot beca
^ble to cloud and flur in fuch a way of anfwcring? Well,
however I proceed to your Exatmn.

B 2 And

Replete the And I begin with yoviT Prologue 5 wherein you declare

^^yoH mak^ to 6*v ibif* Firft , jm pm ( <» yo^ fiy ) Nine
*' Argument J drawne up in Latim io aCommiitce appnntfd( as
^^yoH rpere informed jto give Jatisfa&ion about points oj P^do"
^^ ^apiifme-^ after jvard Three Arguments more^ vpitb a Juppk--
^mefit of fame other things in "writing y nrhich were delivered
i^ to Mr. Tuckneyj^/z^^j himjoyned to thd ether Papers '^ year
^^ intent being either to givs or receive fatisfaBion in this
^^' great point 'j but to this day (much contrary to your expelfd'
^^ & at inn) you have had no returne from the Committee* Se"
^* conily^you are more provoked ify fomcpaffages in a Sermon of Mr,
*' Vines. Thirdly^ and by a cvmparifon in my Sermon^ betrveen
^' Hazaelscrae/zy to the Infants of the Ifraclites, and the prin*
^^eiples efthe hnabiptlAs* Fourthly^ you finde mee too ve-
** hewent in maintaining of this point , of tvhich yu and others
^fe'e no ground, fifthly^ yea Mr. Dan. Rogers confejfej
^'^ himfilfe unconvinced by demonfiration of Scripture for it,
^^ Sixthly^ that Mr, Bd\l cuts the fineries xif the Argument
^ dratPnfrom Circumcifion, Sevcntbly^ihat Mufculiis at length
^^ found I Cor. 7.14. imperttne?itto prove this point. Eighth'
^ly^ to conclude, upon your befi fearch^ yott are confirmed that
^Ht is an Innovation maintained by danger ow principles , a
^ thing not to bee acquitted fiom WiU-rvorfhip '^ that it hath
^ occafioned-rnany errors in Vo&rine, corruptions in Vifciplim
, ^ and manner Sy unnecejfary and vaine dijputes^andalffioji quite
^*^: thanged the Ordinance ofBaptifme^ &c.

This is the fiitn of your Introdu6i:ion5 to which^ becaufe
it is but a pompous dumb fhew, I fhall returne a very briefe
an(wer. ,

Firfl^i, for your Latine bufinefTc fent to the C bmmittee^
1 thouglit you had not been ignorant , that the worke of
Committees^ is but to prepare matter for the AfTembly, but
neither Committees norAffembly have power to anfwer any
thing,fent from' aiiyCexcept from the hotiorableHoufes;with-
out leavfc from* th^ P^rlianient!/^rtd if you pleafe now to take
nBtice oHtjyou W1IJ hb Itmgernvbnder why the Committee
hath made no return to your private Paper 5 this I thirike

ht ckdredu be as AncUn^ as ispmended,

is fuflSdem to remove your fii^ft ftumhling block: onely I
amfiirrfiertotell you from OWr. Twc^wey^ thatheedelires
you to getbetcer evidence for what you relate concerning
him 5 fbr the truth is, he neither mediately nor immediate-
ly received any Papers from you^nor joyned your 3 laft Ar-
guments to your 9 firft.

Secondly, your oifence at a paflage in Mr, Vims his Ser-
mon^ fliall bee coniidered in the place where you againe
repeate it, and aggravate it to the utmoft, V.tn 2 . SA 6.

Thirdly^as to your exaggerating my allulion to Hazaels
practice* I answer, I compared not their ini ent ions -wkh
hisy but the fruit oif their principics 5 cafting all beleevers
Children as much out of the Covenant of Grace^ as they
do the Childi'en of Turks and Pagans, and therein you your
felf joy n with them. Now whether fiich a comparison might
not be u(ed with out any further Apologie, I leave the un-
prejudiced Reader to ] udge.

Fourthly, whether my proofs for this Doftrine are weak^
uncertaine, far-fetch't, (hall God willing appeare to them^
who wil impartially read and compare your book and mine
together.

Fifthly, as for what you fuggeft from my Reverend and
Learned Friend, Mr, "Dan. Rogers^ although enough might
be taken out of his words in that book, to declare his own
meaning ^ I rather chufe to fet it downe in the very words
which he wrote tome in a Letter^ bearing date the 29 of J^-
nuary lafi: pal^, in way of anfwer to a Letter which I wrote
to him '■> wherein I requeued of him to know, what in his
name I fliould anfwer to this paiTage of your book : his
words are thefe* If I were to anfrrer that- Ariabaptifl ^ I
jhofild anfwer ^f wt filentio & cbntemptu: /or wh) Jhould 1 noti
fince 171 that very place of my Saoraments^psirt l*p,y^^yg. where
I confute thofe Schifmatickl^he fnatches my jvords from their own
defence^ My words are^ I confeffe my jelfe unconvinced by any
dtmonpration of Scripture for P^do-Baptifme^ meanings by any
pofitive Tcxt'j what is thiit to helpe him ? Except I thought there
were no other arguments te evince it: NomfwhatTthinke ofthat^
my TtePQf words y^e»7,pag. 77. lin. 435 »f>^']*l need not ttanferibe

B 3 tbem^

them. Inavpordythkl fay^ though I kfjoiv none,y€t that k
no argument for the non-Bapttzivg of Infant i . Jinoe fa many
Scriptures ate fufficieJitly convincing for it. Therefore this want
§fapofiPlve Text ffftift no more exclude Infants^ &c. thentht
lik^ reafon jhoulddifjTmll a Chriflian Sabbath^ or Wcmen-kind
riot to be partakers of the Supfer : The quoting of mine ovpn Text
were enough.

6.1f Mr. Ball cut the finewes of the 'Argument from Cir^
cumcifion to Baptifhie, himfelf was very much miftaken in
his owne meaning and intentions^ who in the very fame
place alledged by you^ufes the fame Argument^ & makes the
parallel to lie in the fame things which my Sermon doth:
you might have done well to have informed the Reader fb
much, when you ufed his authority to overthrow that Ar-
gument: his words are thefcj, ^^ Circumciiion and Baptifme
'^ are both sacraments of Divine inftitution , and To they
^^ argree in the fubllance of the things lignified^ the Perfbns
^^ to whom they are to be adminiilredj and the order of
^^'adminiftration, if the right proportion be obferved ; as
" Circumciiion fealed the entrance into the Covenant, the
^^ righteoufnede of Faith, and Circumciiion of the hearty
^*^fbdothBaptifhiemuch more clearly 5 as, Abraham and
^^ his Houfhold, and the Infants of belecving Jewes, were
*^ to bee Circumcifed; fbthe faithful], their families, and
'^ their feed are to be baptized. Circumciiion was to bee
^^ but once applyed by Gods appointment 5 and the fame
^^ holds in Bapti/hie, according to tlie will and good plea-
"fureofGod.

Seventhly, I perceive you gloiy much that MnfcHlw hatfi
dcferted i Cor,j. 14. as an inipemncnt proofe for bapti-
zing of Infants, and you repeat it at leati three or foure
times in your book : and I obfer ve throughout your whole
Treatife,thatwhenany Auth our joynes with you in any
particular, you improve his authority to the utmofl j
which makes me conceive, that it would be a great glory to
you, to be able to prove aconfcntof Learned men to con-
cur v;ith you in your way. And therefore I cannot but
wonder that you fhould fo much flight and undervalue

die

but ckdred to be as Artcient m is frtundtd. j

the Judgements of Fathers and Councells^ Harmonics and
Confeflions of whole Churches, when they differ from
you. As for MnfcnluSi whether he changed his Judgement
upon I Cor^ 7. on good grounds, (hall be examined in due
place : In the mcane time I informe the Reader that in the
fame place Mufculw acknowledges that there are Argu-
ments enougIi,andfiifficieiitIy llrong to prove baptiziiig of
Infants, though this i Cor. 7. be left out. And i^ Mufculm
Opinion (way in the one, I hq)e it's not to bee rejefted in
the other.

Eightly^whetheriDigw^w tanto tulitblc pr9mifforhiatt(\\^\\^
ther your roaft be anfwerable to your great boaft 5 Whether
your Arguments and Anfwers will make good this high
charge that Paedo-Bapti/hic is an Innovationj maintai-
ned upon dangerous principles, &c. we proceed now to ex-
amine. .

And fi-ift wee fhall inquire concerning the Hiftoricall SeCl, j.
part, jy^ketherV^do'Bapiifme sfitisnow taught^ be hut a late Pvep/yrorhe
Innovation : n^ktber it bee not as ancient of if preten'- Hlftorical parr,
^^, vindicating the

Becau(e many of the Anabaptifts fliame not to fay. That f n^rn^r Bimifiii,
thf AncientSjcfpecially the Greek Church,rejefted Infant-
Baptifme for many hundred yeares ; I faid in the beginning
of my Sermon, that the ChrilUan Church hath been in the
pofTeilion of it for the (pace of 1 5 00 years and upward,and *
named a few teftimonies out of the Greeke and Latine
Fathers, in little more then one page, to make this good ;
no wayes intending to make the weight of the Queftion to
hang in any degree upon humane teftimonies or confcnt of
authority, but onely upon the evidence of the Word, up-
on this you have beftowed two or three (heets of your book,
andjas if all Antiquity run on your fide you confidently ^
affirme :

«« I . Aj much may hee faid fir Epijcopacjy keeping of Eafier^
^* (he reUoioui ufe of the Crojje.

2 . ^^ That my highefi Tefiimonies nacb not fo high

2. that

g JnfAnt'S^pifmi no late Jnmvation^

: s. ^^That being rightly mi^d^ they ma^^ rather agaitifi
cc ij^g prcfent VoCtrine andprMice^ then fir it.
: A.^' That ilxreanmanj evidence j» tpbicb doe offtrmglj frcrve^
<c tbatfromthe beginning it i^as nrtfo^ ^r2d therefore if but an Jn^

innovation* Thefirltofthde yoiT fcippofe fo cleare to
t« Scholars^ that it is needlefTe for you to bring any proofej
«^ the other three you undertake to make good in your fub-
€<^ fequentdifcourle.

Truly Sirj your undertak ing is very high and confident:^
and I (hall diligently weigh with what ftrength you perform
itj and (ball therefore more fully inquire into the pra<^ice
of Antiquity in this point, then elie I fhould have judged
convenient to doe. As for that which you tooke for gran-
ted. That there are plaine teftimonies for Epifcopacy, the
Religious ufe of the Crolfc, &c. before any teftimonies can
be produced for the baptizing of Infants, pardon mee that
I forbear to beleeve you till you have made it good. I have
already alledged fome^ and fhall now (God willing)alledge
more teftimonies to prove that in the Judgement of the An-
cients, the baptizing of Infants was received in all ages,and
from the veryApoftles,as a divine TnftitutionJ read no fiich
thing for Epiicopacy , as a dirtinc^ order from Presbytery^
your £d^c may read in Dr. Reynolds hisEpiftle to Sir Francis
KnoUs^ that in the Judgement of Ambrofe^ Chryfojiome^ Au^
gu^im^ Theodorei^ TheopbyhU:^ Otcumenitif^ Primafim^Sc
dHlim^Grt^oriM^andmanypthtr^ that Bifhopsand Presby-
ters were all one by divine Infiitmiorj^ and that EcckfiafiicaU
fo«/^i/»/wK made the difference between them. Much leife
doe I read among them,that the Religious ule of the Crofle
was received in all ages, and that as a divine Inftitution.
Ifyoucan make it out that theie things were fo, you will
do a very acceptable iervice to the Papifis^^Anabapiifts^^ Fre-
laticall Tarty^-who no doubt will return you hearty thanks^if
your evidence be correlpondent to your confidencc.Ifyou
cannot, you (l^ould doe well to revoke this bold afTeition,
In the meajie time I (hall examine your Examen^ of the An-
tiquity produced to make good the praftice of the Ancient
Church in Paedo-Baptifme. The firfl whereof was taken
frotii Juftim Martyr. Your

7 k Creek Church received Infant- Saptifme. 9a

Your firft exceptioti put in againft this teftimony is con- Mln^Mdrt)?^
cernin^the year in which he lived; I faid 150; thereupon ,^^^^*^^,^j^^^^^^^
you ch^arge me with oierlafiiwg^hcc^ufe I aBrmcd.the Church vindicated.
had been in poffiffion of the priviledge of bapiizing Infants 1 5 00
yeares and ifpn^ardf. Yet my ovcrlafliing herein , is not
fo much as you would have the world believe*
though my teftimonies had pleaded for no higher time
then i$o after Chrilt : Neither have I overlafhed fo
farre in this C ^s God willing hereafter (hall appeare )
as you havfi done more then once. I faid the Church
was fo long in poflelfion of it j and if you bee plea-
fed to (iibtraft 150 from 1^4$. I hope the remaining
numberwillfhew the miftake was not great, as appearesin
the margent.Tf the Church was not all the while in pofJeIIi=
on of it 5 it had been your part to have informed your Rea* i ^ 4 5
der of the time, wherein the Churches quiet polieilion was 150

difturbedj and by whom. It is true, I named Baltazzar ?a^

commitanm with his aflbciates^who to their own ruine ftar- 14 9$
ted up to difturbe this pofleflion: but the claim of an unjufl:
intruder to juftlc out the true owner, will not carry the Ti-
tle in any Court where equity takes place. In pleading the
Churches poffeifion of this truth for fo long time,! faid not
fo much as others have affirmed before me 5 Learned Aw
gufiine (though his judgement bee (lighted by you ") affir-
med as much in his time^and yet I read not of any then that
excepted againft him for it : Ihe Church (fiith he) ever had
it^everbeldity they received this from the faith of their Ance* f^ocEcckpi ^
fiors^snd this vpiU it n>iih perfe-verance keep unto the end^ ^^^^^Z7rte£\*
might fay that the Church before his time ever had;,& main- f,^ca majomm
tainedit, and if after his time it was more clearely held out, fide iccepitjb$e
then I hope I did not overlafh in faying the Church had bin «/?' '« finem
1500 years poffeffed of it. And it were an ealie task to pro - ^^n^^^^^T^''
duce abundance of teftimonies , giving evidence (not one- Scrm.'iT. dc
ly for their own age,b(it)that it was the received cuftome in verbis Apoft#
all ages even from the Apoftks time>& that this evidence waf
truey t»e may hence %7n?3(faith Learned V^Jfitu') hecaufe the Pc-
lagians never durft deny it^ when the Orthodox Divines ufed
topreflcit, who certainly wanted neither Learning nor

D will

I o The Greek Cht^rch recelvedlttfant-Baftifme.

will to have gainfayed their, ifthey could have found the"!
abufing Antiquity : nay, they not onely not denyed this,
bur concurred in it, fb faith Atigujiine^ lib, i . contra C£!ift. &
Felag, C^lifius (flxkhhe^ in a book which hee fet forth at
Kome^ grants, That Infant j tpere baptized for the remijjion' of
fifij^ according tot he rtik of the tmiverfall Church^and according
to she fnte nee of the G of pell.

In the next place you tell me I know th^it hool^ from whence
this tefiimonj was tak^n^ was quefiioned whether it was Jufiine
Martyrs er no. Truly I was not ignorant thereof? therefore
I faid, iff a Treatife that goes under his name 5 I did not confi-
dently averre that he was the Author of it,, yet you plain-
ly G ill it a baftard Treatife, and never prove it.but whofefb-
ever it was, it is well known to be ancient; and both Pro^
teftants and Papifts aflerting Psedobaptifme cite it..

Thirdly, I take notice that you aniwcr nothing againft
the taith of the teftimony it i^cVc ; onely you fay 3 that by
it 1 may fee that the reafin of baptizing Infants was^ not the .
Covenant of grace made to beleevers and their feed ^ tfhhhyon
mah^ the ground of Baptizing Infants at this day. You cannot
be ignorant that this tellimony was not alledged by me to
prove the ground why it was adminiftred ; I onely
made ufe of it to beare witaeffe to the matter of
faft, that Infants were baptized in that age in which
MMrUQH $6 ^hat booke jwas written , which is plairiely held out
in the aniwer to the queftion^you may alfo remember what
Ifaid of alltheteftimonies quoted by me, that I did not
relate them to prove the truth ofthething, but onely the
practice of it; and fo much it doth notwithftanding the an-
iwer which yet you have brought unto it : what ground
theCovenant of Grace made to beleevers and their feed,
gives to BaptifmCj (hall bee manifefted hereafter, and whe-
ther the Ancients ufed not ( at leaftt) fome of the Argu-
ments which we doe.
p. ^ . Come we now to cpnfider what you anfwer to Iren^us his

irenms fefti- teftimony j here you fpeake , i . Of his Countrey. 2 . Of
mony "f^^^^'^^^^' thc^geheliy^dm, 3. i ou queftion his tranflation. 4.And
inthelaft place you fpeakia little againfl the teflimonyit
mf^ . Before

The Greek Churchreceived Infam-Saptifme''. ^ x i

Before you fall upon the examination of the teftimony,
you fay, Hee rv49 a Greek^^ andtProte m Greece ,* bf*t wee have
his IVorks in Latlm ^ except feme fragments : this you conceive
to be a re afon why rve cannot be fo certain of his meanings as we
fijould be^ if wee had hU owne words in the language in which he
wrote : and may not this Objeftion lie againft any Tranfla-
tion ivhatfoever ? and upon thatground you may flight it.
I cannot guefle why you adde this ^ P^p^op^ that hee was a
Greeke^ &c. unlelle it were to intimate to your Reader
that I could not difcern whether he were to be numbred in
the Catalogue of Greek or Latine Fathers : yet you know
that I mentioned him in the firft rank of thofe Renowned
Lights of the Church, which wrote in the Greek tongue^
to which afterwards J added tv/o other : and when 1 came
to ipeake of any of the Latine Fathers j Cyprian was the
firft in whom this queilion did occurre. But whether his
words in the teftimony alledged bee truly tranflated into
Latine, (hall by and by be confidered.

As for his age, you acknowledge with me, that h>e lived
rn the fame Cemttry with Juji, Martjri theyearein which he
flourifhed is varioufly related by the Authors named by
yourfelfe, onefayesiSo, the other 1833 I may adde a
thkd who varies from them both, and fayes 175, and may Trithem,
not others point at other times alfb ? For ought I know,
you needletly trouble your felfe , and your Reader, in na-
ming particular years in which thefe famous Lights of the
Church lived, which I thinke can hardly with exa6i:nefle
be done : it i s (afe to fay, about fuch a time^ or m fuch a Cen^
tury^ fuch and fuch livedo which cannot bee prejudicial] to
the Reader, when wee know a Century Includes many
years : neither can any man warrantably reftraln it to any
one year alone wherein fiich a man flourifhed, as if he had
flourifhed one year and no more.

But I proceed to what you fay of the teftimony it felfe,
it is extant, 7re^. 2,39. Chrifittsvenit falvateomnes^&c. Your
exceptions againft it aremany.

'' Firft, you queftion whether rensfcuntur there Gg^
*^ iiifies baptifme or no, as Feuardentiuf his gIofletafcc« it;

C 2 Se-

1% The Greek Church received Inf 4m -B^pti fife.

^^ Secondly^ You fay, that neither Chrift nor his Apoftles
^^callBaptifmea new birth* Thirdlyj poUibly.this was
^^ not the word uftd by Ireȣm m his own Writing.
*^ Fourthly, that the Latine alters Iren^m his niinde, a5
'^^^ learned Kivei (ayes. Laflly, that hett^m meant not
^^Baptiihieinthis place^ you goe about to prove by his
fcope therein. Thefe arc your exceptions which now wee
come to examine.

To begin with the firft of them, when Iren^us faith,
Chriftus venit falvare omnes qui per eftm rtnafcuntur^nfantes &
parvulos. & pueroj^ &c* Fird you gut-ftion the meaning of
p, 5 ^ the vjordrenafitmtur , whether Baptiime Js meant thereby,
and you ask me, vpheihtr this ivas any other then Fetiardcmtiut
his glojfe^dnd adde RzW/cenfiire of him.
Anfn>. ^ ^^'^^ ^^^ "P^^ "^^ ^^^ defence ofFeuardenttus 5 let hiai,

gpe for fiich a one as Learned Kivet relates him to be, A cor-'
rupierpflnnaus in many ih'ings : yet that judicious Man (ays
not that he corrupted Irm^m his (enfe in this place. And
that he did not,it's manifcft to me, because Bapti(hie ufii-
ally is (tiled by the Greek Fathers a new birtk Learned VoJ^"
jif faith upon that very plac?, that to call bapti(me renafan^
tia^'WSLS ujitata veterihw loqnendi firma 5 which» a few in-
fiances will make good . Jufiim. Martp (peaking of the
ma^h^r ofadminiftration of Baptifme, faycs of the bap-
tized party. He U hron^t t»
^ jHfl*Mart. ap. %iitm a^vitti vf tjfjuav \v^a> the fUce rvhere tht "Water if.
v<^y^^)^7elfTnf^v<Ky^vh(ricoih^m"iiA^rl^^^^ andk reeenerated in the rame
iTy ^ -rfi'c»>.eK«r7tt/ 1^ c.o/.ct7©- t. m- ^^^„^^ wherein wee wJe re-

7f^><b*

generated: [and to put it out
fi^Ef Qntroveriie,he is there fpeaking of BaptKm under the-
name c^fRegeneration jhe 2Ldds:Xhey are then Wa^ed in wMter
m the nc^me ofoHr Lord God Creator ofaU things^^andofour Lord-
and Saviour Jtfus Chrifi^and the holj GhofiMcrc he tcls us what
he meant by Regeneration mentioned before ; viz. When
the Party was in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghoft wafhed with water, that is, baptized- Vionyfiuf Areo'"
fiigita (but you will (ay he is queftioned, yet no man can
qucftion wheth^ he expreft Baptifme. by regeneration)

§>caki0S

TM GreckChrch rteeivcd Infant-BAptifmel i j

faking of BapdfmefaycSjDiV^eJi^ifi/ ofth divint gtne"
ration^ an^ what is that ( I

pray you) but a new birth? To, ^m rns k^ywinaf cv^l^oidy tHonyf. Arc-
yea in the fame Chapter he op. Hicrarch.ca.2. 7h t%ik^j nhnnf -dso-
addesforthercfit. rheSa- >^-^^^ccj^.^.^flA«.
crament of our divide genera-
tion oi ma figne. And in the beginning of that part 5 hee-
calls the Font^or place in which Baptiime was adminiftred,
riiviMiTieSf' 7"^ uio^iffizi , flj( rnother of our adoption, Athmafim De Sab, (^
*ayes5«^«t' Ktvl^v dvxyivvauivcj^ we are borne again by wafh- ^^^(^^^ncif*
ing: and doth not BafiUdiWit'^^^yyivifr.a.v'^v'^i^ the re-Bifi].exbortati»
generation of the foHle> Greg.Nazianz*Orat. 40. amongft ^^(^dbapuf-
many other titles he puts on Baptiihic, this is one5'^^'»*''«^- '"^"*
CT*v 4v')^f, Now I demand of you ^ do not all thefe Authors
call Baptifnie a new Birth, which }yc 11 would faften onely
on Feuar dentins ? yea doth not Ambrofe call thcFon: Bapi-
fteriffmregsneraUonislaVacrHmy the lava ere of Regeneration ? -^/^- ^"^ initian"
Whatfoever you fay of mcj I hope by this time you will^*'^*''**
^ not think that both Latine and Greeke Fathers learned
of Feuardentiw his gloiTe to call Baptilhie a new birth.

Secondly, you fay^w^Jrj&^rt* doth our Lordorthej^pofilejyP,6,
call Baftifme a ntw birth. I defire to know of you the mea-
ning of that place, T^^ 3*5. I thought the Apoftle there
had called Baptilme ^^^f •«' Tm-heyyiHi^ai, the v^afhing €f\ihe new
hirth^ or Regeneration : and what that is^^but Baptifme^yet '
I know not. To me the Apoftle feemes plainely to parallel
the wafhing of regeneration^ and the renewing of the ho-
ly Ghoft^ as type and counter type. And the Analogie be-
tween wafhing in Baptifme, and Regeneration, lies in that
cuftome of wafhing Infants from the pollutions [of the
wombe when they are firft born. A learned Critick o£Mr. Meek,
our own in his Diairiba upon that place,thinke8 none will
deny that in thefe words the rvajhing of Kegeneratioriy the A*
poftle is fpcaking of Baptifme : fure I am, moft of the In-
terpreters which I have feen upon that place agree that he
either argues direftly from Baptifiiie, or at|leaft alludes to ^
it.

Thirdly, you grant, though the word renafcmtur is nfid

C3 /r

1 4. The Greek Chtirch received Infant'B4ptifme.

for Baftifme by the Amients (which before you feemed to pin
on Femrdemiw his Uceyc) yet pojjibly it rvoi not the word ufed
by lren<euf in his owm rvriting, 1 1 fems^ now you dare not
ftand upon the ftrength of the word renafiuntur ^ becaufe
you confefle it was ufed by the Ancients for Bap-
tifinej therefore your conjecture here is. That pojfibly it
TPOtnotthe wordufedbyIren£m for Baptifme inhu ovpn wri-
ting. I (hall goe further then you (and yet not wrong the
truth) and fay, undoubtedly, renafcuntur was not the word
afed by Iren<eus in his owne writing, for he wrote in Greeks
and therefore it may well be conceived he faid not nnafmu"-
^wr^though he might fay ^wy^v^vrat : But to that which you
anfwer, I adde, you know 'tis commonly faid in the
Schooles, forte ita^folvitur per forte non : you fay, poffibly
it was not Iren^m his word. I anfwer, pofTible it is that
Irendsw might ufe the Greek word, which is well tranflated
rmzfcuntur : for why might not hee being a Grecian, fpeak
of Baptifme in the phrafe and (lile as other Grecians did?
yea, that he did ipeake fo, is moft probable , becauft that
other Greek Fathers ufe the word '^^O >->'-<"««, amrv hit thy
in the fenie in which I alledged it.

As for the altering o{Iren£m his mind by the Latin Tran-
flatlon,not having his works in his owne language , I dare
not fayfb much: when you bring forth Irendsus his words in
Greek, r (hall the better be in abled to judge of it; in the
meane time I accept of the Tranflation, having made it
good by parallel phrafes in other Greek Fathers.
P,6* ^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^l^iCQ you labour to prove^ That it is not meant

of Baptifme from Iren£m his f cope in that place. To th is I an-
iwer, albeit that bee granted which you (ay was his (cope
there, yet his words prove the que(i:ion in debate before us.
Ihopeyouwillnotdeny, but that the (cope of afpeech
may tend to prove one thing ; and yet the expreilions ufed
may give light to otherthings ; wasnotthe Prophet Eze^
Ezek. 3 7. kid his (cope by the parable of dry boms rJfing again^ to prove
the reftauration of the Jews (who then (eenied to be dead)
to their former ftate? that no doubt was the drift, yet
Dfr^y'wr.ftf.ji. heelay^sitfoithby that parable: and TertuHian by the

feme

Th Greek Church received In f Ant- Bapifme. i j

fame proves tb€ Refurreftion at the laft day, if hee
had not beleeved that dead bones were to rife againe
(faith the father ) how could hee by that Simile taken
from them prove the Refiirreftion of the Jewes? So
may I fay here^ let it be fuppofed that Inn^us his drift is,
as you (ay, to prove that Chrift was an Infant to fan^^ifie
Infants, yet hee fayes they were renewed when they v/ere
baptized. As for Inn£us his Judgement of Ch rills living
upon the earth about 5 o. yeers, it was not alleadged by
me, therefore I leave it to you to helpe Irfn<eus therein,
becaufe you alledge it. Now I delire the Reader to caft his
eye back upon all that you have faid about this teftimonyj
and fee whether you have brought forth any thing to ob-
fcure the light that it gives to our queftion : all the ilrength
ofwhatyoufaid lay in the word renafiuntnr^ whether that
fignifiedBaptrfmeorno: which by the ufuall language of
the Grecians I have made good againft your exception, and-
ib I pafle from your examen of this Author and follow you
to the next.

In the third place you come tofift Origens teftimony: OrigensTc^k^
^^ Wherejfirfl,you queftion the authority of the booke; fr* vindicated.
^^ condiy, you fay, if it be Origens^yet hee calls Pi3Bdo*^bap-
*' tifme but an Apo frolic all tradition, and from thence
^^ youdrawfordifonieconclufions. In all which I hope
^^ to manifeft yourmiftakings,and foto discover the weak-
^ nefTe of your premiies, that they (halliiot in any indiffe-
rent man his judgement be able to draw thefe conckfioni
after them.

Firli:, youqueflionthe authority of thefepaffages cited
out of Origen whether they are his or no : and you call the
Author ohhtmjuppofed Origm : It had been -yotir part be-
fore you had fo branded them, firllto have mad€ it niani'*
feftbyfomeundenyable evidence or other, that they were
not Origm J ^ youqueflion but prove not, and lam not
the firft that hath produced thcfe teftimonies to piX)ve In- •
fant-Baptifme, many learned m^ handling- this ^tjcfiion •
have done the faWteb^ore me. " t ■; r ^ v..

You feek alfo to weaken the audtdrity of thife teftimonies

by

l6

Hitron. ad
FammAchinni,

ratio in Ep. ad
Rom.

Kuji» profit,
idR.om%

The Greek Church received Infam-Bdpufme.

by the Cenfiircs of two judicious mtViyErafmiM and Terklns :
the former of them (who was vzr emHn&£ narii in giving
judgement of the writings of the Ancients) faithj that rvkn
a man reads hU Homilies m Leviticus y and on the Epifik 43
P.omanf^ tranfijted by K^ffinufy bee cannot he certaine whether
he reads Kuffinm or Origen. Yet Era/muf faith not that thefe
Homilies fee forth under his name were Ruffinm his Homi-
lies^and not Origms, If Kuffinui had wronged Origtn in
that point now in queftion, why (hould not that have been
laid in his di(h by fome of the Antients di/courling on this
queftiouj who no doubt would have been forward enough
tohavetakennoticeofit toKnffim^ his prejudice, as well
as other things which they objeS: againft him?
.. To this you adde Reverend Perl^ins his teftiniony^ who
puts his commentary on the Komaus amongfi hU sounterfeit works^
as being not faithfully tranjlated hy Kuffinttt, It may be • Origen
might fufFer by his Tranflatoi^5 for Tranflations arc vari-
ous^: (ome affe^l in their Tranflations to follow their Author
jtjPTw 7:o</k^ tQ ti^ace the very footlieps of the words they tran-
flate: other Tranflations are metaphrafticall^ or by way
of paraphrase, they expound as they tranflate i thus leverall
men have their feverall fancies, though they adhere to the
Author which they tranflate,even when they keep not in all
things to his words : Hierom gives inllance in the Septua-
gint Tranflators, who(e telHmony I need not name to
you. Kuffnm ,acknowledgeS3 in .tranflating Origms Homi-
lies on Levitict4i^ that hee added fome things to what Ori--
gen Mdj and what they were hee exprefl^s : ea qu£ ah Ori-
gene in auditorio Ecclefi^ ex tempore non tam explanationis quam
adificationpf intentione perorata frnt -J the things which were
fpoken by Origen to his auditory, he tranflated them by way
of explanation,pr did more fully lay them forth in a po-
pular way and therein Ruffinm dealt candidly, te^
ling us what were the things hee added 3 in this Eraf-
7«j<f_ acknowledges his faire dealing. But as for his Com-
mentary on the Remans^ Ruffinus confefTcth fe hoc opm to^
turn ad dtmidium traxi^e^ there wa^ no addition ofRuffi'
nm^ Er^/wwf here blames him for cutting off what Orig^

delivered

ThtGritk church received InfMnt-Bdftifmtl fj

delivered more at large, but neither doth Kuffinus confeilc,
nor ErafriiU challenge him here for any addition to what
Origmiaxd : I (ball oncly defire the Reader to take notice
that none of theteftimonlesby me cited oat of Origerij are
denyedbyEr^/^^/wf to be Origenj : neither can they be con-
ceived to bee any of the additions mentioned before by Kuf-
finuf : therefore yonr exception is not proved by Srafmuj
nor Terkj^J teflimony.

Youzddeyifithepjjfagifwhich I cite ^ there are plaine expref'
fioTis in them againft Tdagians^ which mak^j jou thinke they
tvert put in after the Pelagian herefie vpm confuted by Hierome and
AHgufiine'^ though they make againft the Pelagians^ yet
who can neceflarily inferre^ that all thefe Homilies in
which thefe paflTages occurre were written after the Pelagi-
an Herefie was broached ? iufl* Martyr maintaines the Di-
vinitieof Jefiis Chrift, yet we know hee lived long before
-^rij^f the ring-leader ofthatcurfed Seft which denied it;
can any man conclude that lufl. Martyr did not beare wit-
nefle to the divine Nature of Chrlft, becaufe hee lived be-
fore Arius ftarted up ?

Then you tell us Origen caSs Infant'-bapMing an Apoftoii"
caS tradition^ according te the obfervance of ibc Church. This
cavill I prevented when I quoted the teftimony, which
ftcmes to have (bme weight in it^ for you grant what I (aid
about Traditions, which is warrant enough to me to adde
no more to juftifieit, otherwife (beiidcs the teftimony of
Sa'ipture which I named in 1 Theff.2, 15,) many other out
ofAntiquitie may be added^wh ere Tradition is taken in that
(en(e. E;>ipi^j;zi«/ calls Baptifme and other my fteries ob- £/»//*./« /«?•
(erved in the Church, which are brought forth out of the *^^^^'
CSofpell and fetled by Apoftolique authority, ^e^'^'wf.
Tvherebythewayyoumayfee that hee grounds the Bap-
tifmc^'then innle in the Church, (and even then Infants
were Bapti2ed ) on the Scriptures and authoritie of the
Apoftles, as wdl as other my fteries of the Ckriftian Re-
ligion. Buc I follow you, BecaufcyCsiy you, in neither erf'
thefe placej tak^n notice of hy mee Origen cites any Scripture fir
ffapiizi7iglnfantSy thtrefordt mttfi hee underfioad &fan u^nfrit- .

D ten

1 8 Tbe Gmk church rmivtdlHf^n^Bdptifme.

Un 7'r4^i*ifl«:had it appeared as a n^w notion not heard of
in the Church bsforcjthfn had k b?en fit he (liould have
confirmed what he faid : but it beiug a pofition j vv hkh (as
he fayes the Church obferved) hee needed not to prove it.
Ignatius prefles upon Hkro to attend to reading and exhor-
4fl.r^ ad^Jfkr. tation^and cals thofe things <ricSia.yfiii;cty tradition.syet addes
no Scripture to confirni what he ^ayes, becauie they were
things well knownto the Church to bee confonant to the
Scripture. So Origen tells us Infant-Baptifhie was gene-
rally obferved by the Church; and had any appeared to
plead againft the lawfulnefle of it^ he would no doubt by
Scripture have maintained it, as well as affirmed it^tocome
from the j^poftles^ which he did.

Theie are your premife which now behig anfwered^your
concMona infer d from thenccj of themielvesmuft fall to
the ground: forif Infant-baptifme came from the Apo-
flles^ and was generally obferved in the Church in Orh
gem time, then you have no reafbn to challenge it of a thing
not k^OTPn before his time^ nor delivered over to the Church in
bis time : albeit he expreft it under the name of an Apofto-
lacall Tradition.
6reg' 9rdt, 40. The laft Greek Author alledged by me was Gregory Na^
jnBApt. zSariz£?7^who€alsBdptifrnfignjcHlHmvit£curfumirieuntihm:

i^«c7tf?j. vindi- 2g^}jjft whicKtefiimony you have nothing to objc6i:;oneIy
^*^^ ' whereas I added^ hee feemed afterwardj te refiraine baptizing

« « h^ants t§ the cafe of mceffliy : You ask of nie, Voth hefeeme
onely to retrain it to the cafe of necejjitjl He givej(J[kyyou)hik^
reafonwhy theyjhould be bapizjtd^ but xvithall declares his opi-
nion that othas pouldflaj longer : but what of all this, what
follows hence more then this^ thatinhisdajej Infants were
hapiized^ though his advice xvtff, that thejfhould defer it^ unkffe
there tvere danger ofdeatl:^,

Thefe are the Greek Authors alledged by me^ none of
' which are denyed by you to teftifie the practice of the
Church in this point in their ieverall ages , onely your ex-
ceptions have been all on the by, not againft the teftimo-
niesthemlelvesj which yet (notwithftanding what you
Iiave,anrwered)Idoiibtnotwill by any Judicious Reader
bee

rh Greek ChHtchmuvtdlnfm-Sdptifmi. jtp

bee allowed^ for dear c proofes of the praftiee of Paedo-
haptiihie in the Greek Church.

After yoLir examination of the former Teftimonies^you P, p,
adde 3 Argimien ts to Qiew that Infant-Baptifme was
not known in the Greek Church.

Firltjifit had been known among them. 7o« rponder mhy
I finde noihlngf^rit in Eufebius^ Igrutiw^ Ckmerts Akxsn-
drinusy Athitnafiufy and Epiphanius ? To this I fay, they
ipake to the clearing of iiich qiieflions as were atbot ia
their times: had any qiieftion been ftarted when they wrote
about P:«do-baptiime3 no doubt they would have cleared
it, as C)';>rijn didj and as it was done in the Councell of
Neoc£farea. It is enough to niee that none of the Authors
named by you Ipeake again ft it , can wee fay that the Fa*
thers Jiving before the Pelagians troubled the C hurch^de-
-nyedthetradudion of original! fin, becaule they (pake
.not clearly of it^ before it was denyed by thofe curfed He-
retiques. Nor is it any glory to you that your Error was
liotancient enough to be confuted by Eufebiuf^ Ignatiufy
Clemens Akxandrinmy Athanafim^zxid Epiphaniw: yet whe-
ther any of thefe named by you (pake for Infant-Baptifinc,
(hall now bee coniidered. I finde even in fome of them
which you have named5exprclIions which doth induce mce
to bekeve that they were farre from reje<^ng of PaEdo-
baptifme.

I will notifearch into them ail, for if anything were
brought out of J^«^tf»f, you would tell mee that you did
not know Ignatius when you (cehim, (as you have done
with others named before) and 1 h ave no time to wrangle.
You deiire to know what Clemens Akxandrinuf faith.^ why, T'^^ Clem.A*
fure he hadnone but great Infants to.his Scholars 5 if you ^'^'^^ *^^*
(who pretend to beacquaintedfaniiliarly with the fecrets
of antiquity) be acquainted with him , you'll know what
Jmeane: He defired (as it is likely more Greekc Fathers
who were converted from Pagani(medid) to fetforthRe-
Ugion in liich a way as might move other Pagans to come
andmake confeifion of the Chriftian faith, that fo they
might be added to the Church by Baptifine in (iich a way

D 2 ag

2 e The Greek Church received Infant-BAfufme.

as was proper td the bapti2iiig of grown men. The next
(whofe teftimony yoii mi He) is Athanafius : you defire mee
to quote any thing out of him to prove the Greeke Church
did admit Infants to Bapti/me, if that will make you ceafc
wondering^rUdoeit: what fay you to that paffage in
AthanafiM > where hee is (hewing how we are buryed with
Athan.diUddy CXvc'A'm BaptifniCj and rife p.gaine; hee fayes, the
mterpmatio dttpbig cf the Infant quite

Script. W. 94* 'TTf yfi(^T<f/b<rm7r> mi^io!^ . Sj^ \^^ */ -^ j •

^ Jn.iF^gives I. 7? x^Vaffc., e^.. «''^^''^ ^^'^^ thnceandrai^

teftiir.ony ro . fi^g^f ^^ *^P agatn^ doth fiztit^

InimtB^^uim, fie the death of Cbrifiy and his refnrre^ion upon the third day :
is not that teftimonyplaine? In his Queftions ad Antio"
ch, in the lecond queftion of that booke, it is defired to
beknown^ how ftiaJIwe know that he was truly baptized,
and received the h oly Ghoft^C^'f ^v y nm ^hra oiyicd Batttiu •
Aww yinholy Baptifm when he tfos a Child {(it feenis then it was
a cuftome for Infants to receive Bapti(me:}He lets down an
aniwer to itjthat is to be known(faith he)by the motions of
the Spirit in his heart afterwards ^ as a Woman knows (he
iiath conceived^when (he feels the child to flir in her womb;
ov^a. pjjmTWJ' jijffc^y, not becaufe his Parents fay fo. If that
place doth not plainly 3 and in an Orthodoxall Way beare
witnefle to Paedo-baptifine, I know not what can doe
it.
... IcouldoutofthefameBookeadde another teflimony,
TiA. ""^^ butyou will perhaps tell me, the words next following
thofe that I (hall cite are queftioned. But I fhall then reply,
!• The words that follow may bee erroneous, and yet
vftiXtcnhy Athanafins. 2. The words which I (hall cite
may be the words of Athanafins^ and the words which fol-
low, hone of his^ but added by fome other. 3. How dot
youprovethat7Vr*«i?7V;7, or Grtg, N.rzianzen wrote thofe
words which you cite out of them. 4. You can ( more
then once) make this a plea for yoar lelfe C that your alle-
p. ^, gatijonsmay gaine a favourable con(tru£tion ) That ymr
proefiff ukpi oat if Aiiti^HHy dot as ftwigly prove- the point
in hand ^ as proofes are ujhuUj fallen in fitch matters, I doubt
not but all iwipartiali Readers will fouchfiife me the fame

faTQtf-

Jhe Greek Church received Infanu^dfYifme. ^ ,

ftvourablegraines of allowance 3 and then tkis teflimorvy
^Ifo of AthanapHS may paiTe for currant.

Thefe words then which are fafe & ft>iind3grounded upon
the fame Scripture which I have much infifted on^ are read
in the works of Athanafitts : where the queflion is about
Infants dying, requiring a refolution that might clearly '^tt
forthj whether they goe to bepunilhed;>or to tbe Kingdom? AtUr, \ 4
Theanfwer is, S^nng the Lord /aid y Suffer little children to tkck. "qn, \i^'
(orne unto mzy for of fitch is the Kingdom of Hiazen, And ^'''

the ApoJ^U fayts ; tionp jour children

mhoiy\ (obferve'that Gofpel ground, ^''^"/^ jsji'ct ^i^Zv A-)ia k*.', t^^^/h
thefamethatIbuildupon)i^i5/«^-. ^Tr^z^Llir'^^''^'''^^':'^"'
nifefithat the Infants ofbeleevers T^hicb ^.^T'^l]:: ru^^^^fc.fi^:^^
are haptJzedy doe as Hnjpot ted and faith-
full cnttr into the Kirjgdome. Thi? aifertion 15 owned by aH
the Reformed Churches.

Epiphanius you fay, faya nothing of it in aplace^-whidiyoa
cite : and are you lure he fayes nothing any where ej/ei'
admit he doth not, forme a Syilogiihie, and fee how your
argument will run, &c» but I defireyou at your Jeaftfe to
caft your eye upon that exprclTion of Epiphanius ^ which
doth induce mee to beleeve that hee did notrejefl Paedor
baptifine: where hee tells us, Thzt Circumcifion had its
time^ untiU the great Circutncifon came^

that is. the rpajhing of the nen? hirth^ as "^^^ ^(^K^v meip^h 'm^iymro^.
ismanifefitoeverjcne. What's the ^'!?J^^;^L'^%Tr''^'''^
waftimg of Regeneration but Bap- Cerimhiams.
tifme ? which he would Icarcely have

calledCircumciiion, if heehad re]e6led Infant-Baptifrne, Epiphanius^
anddenyedthatthechildrenof beleevers (who are hope- o^n^d the ar,
follycapableof Circumdlionmade without hands, may crcumcifio^n
lavTfulIy partake of this great Ciraimcifion : and add es, roBaptirive.
Th at this was notorioufly knowne to all jfurely th en none
dcnyed it In his time-

Secondly, you reafon from the continuance eftht ^cfti' Thequeftiona
onj^ pHt to perfons when they rrere to he baptized^ and anftve-^ put to the
red by them: whicli I think becaufewc muft conceive chil- Baptizer^i^
drenwerenotabfetoretumeaaanfwertothem, thereby rn^Lwifm?"

you ^

2 2 The Greek Chmch recehed InfAfit-Bapiifme.

you would inferre they Were not baptized : Bat I anfwer,
when the Gofpel went firft abroad into the world:, luch as
being of age were firft taught> were then baptized, A&, a.
41. & A&, 8» 13, 37. After that time fiich as were taught
V<^dig. are faid to be catechized : for K^T^X^^f *'? '^hv 'mei^yin^ the

Catechifme leads men to faith 3 faith C/ew. Akxandrinus ,
When iiich were prepared and made tit to be baptized, cer-
tain queftions were propounded to them concerning tl"ieir
faith in Chrirt, their refolution to forfake the Devil, &c»
which are related by many of the Ancients : when thole
of age aftei-wards brought their children to Baptifme^thele
queilions were likewileputto them (though of themielves
they were not able to make anfwer to them} but how war-
ra ntably I will not goe about to prove ; yet that they were
ufed at Infants B^ptifme, as well as at'the baptifme of/uch
as were of age, it appeares by Balfamon in Can. 6, Cone, Netjr
cafar^ Aug, Ep. ad Januarium^ &c^ To all which queilions
atChildrensBaptiiine, fuchas undertooke their education
made'anfwer on their behalf Thejfefore you cannot by thefe
queftions infer that Children w^e not baptized, (ceing thefe
Authors certifie that queilions Were put to them, and alio
tell us who aniwei-ed for them.

Thirdly, you conceive hccaufe mwy children borm ofChn^
fi tan parents jvtre not baptized when they vPtre jemg'-i There-
fore it was not their cuilonie to baptize Infants. For the
making good hereof you bring forth inllances of Cw/jJ^w..
tine the Great, Greg, Nazianz. and Chryfifiome.
Of oU fome Before I fpeak of thefe inllances, it will not be imperti-

defer'd their ^ent to fpeake ibmewhat of the pra^lice of fome among the
?in "e^as wdi as ^^^cients in deferring Baptifme h and here I ^nde that fome
their Infants. Ancient Chriftians deferi\i their owne Baptiihie ma-
ny times 3 (aS- well as their Infmcs) but upon no good
ground jHS may appeare by many iharpe inve6livcs againft
them for it, which are extant in the Greek Fadiers : iee Ba"
fil. exhortat. ad Baftifmt^m^ Greg Nazienz. erat, 40, inhanB,
Bapt,Chryfofl,Hom,2.inA&.Apo. v.,--= .

From thefe feverall Authors and others, may be gathered
the grounds upon which th^ defer'd Baptiihie. Some-
times

Thi Gmk Churchrmtvid InfmU Baftifrnt* aj

times they would doe u iiumitation of Chrift>whowasnot
baptised till he WAS about thirty ycaixjs of agej they would Vbifrm,
put off their baptifme untill they came to the like age. Gng*
Ndxianz* disputes a ^aiuttthefe, Confiamim the Great put ^«/^Mf wi.
offhis Baptifme untiU hce (hould come to the Rivor Jordan ^' "'^' ^^^ ^'
ifi which Chriil was baptized^ though he never attained to
that defired place^ for he dyed at Nkomesiia. Some agaitie 'Vbiprius,
deferred Baptifme^ untill they fhould have opportunity to
be baptized by fbme fpeciali Biihop of fome eminent places
thefe GrcgMazian reproves at large. Some al^ put off their
Baptifme upon another ground , they conceived it did
wa(h away all fin ifo thought 0/jt^. Hym, i$,m Ihefl^Mom, Aug.Confef, i,
5. /'« Ex, Cypr. lib, J . ad ^ir'num. & lib* 4. ep.j, Whereup- ^ ^'
upon it was a common fp^ech^when they law one to follow
his iinfull courfes , fine illum^ faciat qnod vuU^ nondum
baptizatuj eft : to the famepurpoleGr.'^. N;j7e«Kjin his ex-
hortation to Baptifme^ brings in the very fame ipeechcs of
themj whoput off their Baptifme upon this ground] fay-
ing, Sirte^ came ahutar^ & turpi libidine fr^ar^ in c£no vo»
hptatHm vdutjhor^ mxnns fanguim poUu^m 5 aliena attferam^
ddofc amhulabO'ipe'jer aboymmtiar : bjptifmam turn demnm fu"
fiipiam^ cum k vitiU & iniquitatibus dcfiftam, Hce fpeakes
much moretothatpurpofeinthatplace^ to which I refer
the Reader: all which teftifies what they thought of Bap-
tifmcj that it waQicd away all their fins^ therefore they de-
fcr'dit, for 'they would have none abridged of their fin-
full delights untill they were baptized. Epiphamus tells
us that Mircion gave order to have Bapti/me thrice admi-
niftredj firfi when a man had committed any great finne ,
after that in his judgement^ hee might bee baptized for the
doing of it away : Againe, if after that Baptifme hee had
renewed his finne, hee was the fecond time to bee baptized^
and fo the third time, if after the fecond he had renewed his
fin again. This opinion of the efficacy of Baptifme to doe
away finne, might induce them to defer it untill they were
ready to leave the world 3 that by baptifhie then 'admini-
ftredtothem^ in their opinion, all their finnes might bee
done away. But Naz, confutes fuch ^ tcUing [them all

timu '•

^^ 7i)e (srttk Charch received Infant-BAftifme,

timas mre jit frr Baptifme-, feeing no time was free from deaths
So did Greg. Nyjfenuf alfo. They were alfo Jed into this
error by anotherj Tome thouglit that baptized perfonS
might live and not (in, for if they did finne after Bap-
tifmc (in their conceit) there remained no repentance for
them, inifunderftandiiig that place of ffeb. 6, 4. which
placei'iiowasabufedby the Novatians^ denying reniiffi-
on of fins to Chriftians ,finning after baptifme.

It is cleare upon thefc and die like grounds(but how juft-
ly, I leave it to you to judge) many put off their owne
baptiitiie. Neither doe I fee why that others alfo may not
be thought (even npon no better grounds) to have defer-
red the baptiime of their Infants 5 which yet doth no
wayes prejudice the commonly received , ahd conftantly
praft iced ordinance of fnf ants- Baptiime ^ no more then
the above-named prai^i/e may bee brought to prove that
it was not the received praftifeof the Churcli to baptize

iiichaswere converted from Paganifme to Chriftianity, at
their fir (1 converfion.

Yet here I cannot but adde further 5 that fometimes it
might fall out thatChriftians might not have the oppor-
tunity of bringing their Children to Baptifme, becaufe
^ they dwelt among Infidels^ or Pay nims^ where they could
not enjoy the benefit of the Word and Sacraments for
themfelves or their chdldren : therefore in fu ch a cafethcy
were necefJitated to put off the baptizing of their Chil-
dren. Greg.Naz. fayesexprelTely, that fomemaybehin-
ri^ / ^o ^ered from Baptifm by fome violence,' or fomeunexpeaied
(/ '^f . 4^' accident;,'? ^'^ ^^^ ^^Koyhon dviui J7n}^t tj^I^ T^yetei^rixctiO-i

that though they would, they could not enjoy the Grace
(of baptifme whereof he h fpeakingO if by €yxc\\ accidents
they themselves might be hindered from Baptifme, why
might not the like accidents hinder them alfofrom recei-
ving Baptifme for their children^

Againe, fometimes their lot might fall out to live a-
mongHeretiques, which corrupted the Faith, and there-
fore would not have their Children baptized by them :
might they not do herein as that pious mm Mofis^ who re-

The Greek church received rnfam'BajffijTne. 25

fufed to receive impofition of hands from bloody Lucius So^cm.4*i9,
that Arian Bi(hop. Neither would Antiochm bee ordained ^^^'^•4. 14.
by Jy^^/wzJWj who adhered fometimes to the -^rw^j: aflii-
redly, fiich as fcrupled to bee ordained officers in the
Church by fuch^niay upon the like grounds bethought ra-
ther to chufe to deter the bapti2ing of their childrcn^then
to have them baptized by fuch. Many queftions were mo-
ved in the Church <ibout Baptifmc adminiftred by (iich as
were not found in the Faith ; which were agitated €0 farre
by Cypriavy and other Africans^ that they held their Bap-
ti(me to be null, and therefore conden^ning their dipping,
or wafliing, ordered that fuch (hould be baptized.

Some other caules might be found out, why men might
defer both their owne, and their childrcns Baptifine ,
which yet T will not juftific ; they might herein doc^ as ho-
ly Mofesy Exod. 4. dcfer'd the Circumciiing of his fbn , q^^ ^
yet il/o/ej well knew it was an Ordmance in IJrael^ that
every fon of eight dayes old (hould be circumcifed* Holy
men in this might ali^uid humanum patu^ I will neither ex-
cufe nor aggravate their fault : onely 1 thought good to
(peake fbmewhat in general! of the cuftome of fome in
deferring Baptifhie.

I come to the ihftances here given by you : the firft lis Coffiatttine^ "
Confiantim the Great ^ (jhough thefonm oj Helena ^ nho is Bap.noArgn-
reported to have been a zjealouf Chrifiian ) rat baptized till jpentthitln-
het rvas aged. You (hould have done well to have proved , J^^ baptized,
her to have been fuch , when Conflaniine was borne, o-
therwi(e what gaine you if (hee were converted afterwards?
The true caufe why he received not Baptifme at his Infan-
cy (fo neare as I can gather it from the dory of bis life}
was this : C on fi ant iw his Father^ albeit a man of afivcet
temper, and a Prince wonderfqll tender of the welfare of
all his Subjeftsi firft out of the mildncfTe of his nature fa-
voured Chriftians ; (feeing and obferving their unblamc-
able converfation and faithfulnefle in all their employ-
ments t ^ therefore he did not in an hcftile waypuriiie
their Religion^ as others Emperors did : yea, at length he
grew to a good efteem of it, cfpecially tcwards the latter

E end

26 The Gmk Church received Infam-BAptlfme.

^ end of his life : in this time his Ton Cdnflantlne the Great y
/ • livM mVmkfian his Court, froniwhence (his life being
i / twice in danger) he iiiddenlyefcaping, came to his father
thenfick, and prefently upon his death, hcc was by the
Army faluted Emperour : Thefe things confideredj it is no
marvaile if hee were not baptized in his Infancy j when,
for ought I read, his Parents had not then embraced the
Chriftian Religion when he returned at his Fathers death,
he was3oyearesof age: and whether ever his Father
was baptized/ the ftory is filent. {Neither is Helena her
aflfeftion to Religion in his Infancy, related in the Story,
though afterwards it is often mentioned. You need not
then wonder, why when hee was an Infant hee was not
baptized: inafmuch as it appears not that his Parents were
then become Chriftians, yea, and himfelfe alfb was an un-
beleever many years, as is apparent in the ftory.
Kor angory ' The next mentioned by you, is Gng, Naz. the fome of a
Niu^tan^en. Chriftian Bijbop^ and brought up long hj him^ rt>4S not bafti-
zjsd till hee came to be a youth. You fay he was^i^e Jonne of a
Chriftian Bifhop^ but how doe you prove it? he that writes
his life ,tells us, there was a time when his father was not
a Chriftian j yet afterwards, rr>hen hee had caft of the fuper-
^ 4» , , , , ft ition and deceit of the Hypftfiariafij^

^^^ifT^'^'^^'^'.T?^?^^'* hee appeared a true fiUomr , or difci^
Z-^m&fifiy^-^^ :^^1&><^c. pie of the. -Dtvm grace. a„d fo firfi
- i-' . . beehecame a bmepe^and ajterwardj a

s^lfuU Skphardro the Church, What was the Hjpftftarian
crr6ur, Grsg, himfelfe explaines in his Funerall Oration for
his Father. Whether hee was converted from it before
Gregory vj^s born, it is notexpreft : Yet the Hiftorians tell
iis When N^x. was but youngs he with Bafil were bred in
humane literature at Athens , from thence he paft to uin^
'iiocby all this while we read not of his ft udying the Chri-
So f r. 4 . i J « i^iail Religion till afterwards. For it is to bee remembred,
Sqi, 6.16. that when he with Bafil\\2id fpent much timejand well pro-
fietl Ml; humane literature j ibme would have perlwaded
^ tfiem to tecomcTeachers of that kinde of learnings others
.inoVed them to betake tlwrnfelves to publike pleading of

caufes;

4^

The Greth Church received It^fam-Bdptififti

caiifes ; but rcfafing that way of ftudy y they beg-
thinke how to order their lives holily, as the rule of CI
jftian Religion did direft thcnij whereiw they proi
much; in the knowledge whereof ^/'%t>«/ books were help-
ivHH to them. Greg. Nazianz. having ipent 30 yeares in /jftit^fuL
tho(e (ludieSj he returned to his Father and was baptized : '
his education was not under his Father^as you reiatejand if
his parents were Chriftianswhen he was borne, I wonder
they (hould (end him to Athens to be trained up under Hea-
thens, and why hee was not baptized as foonc as hee was
converted to ChriiHanlty, if you can lay downe the true
caufe, I defireyoutodoeit; i dare goe no further then
I havewarrantfromthe/tory, and the relation of his life:
Yet I may hint my conjecture from hrs own words ; where
he fays there were three forti of men(belades jthole which I Orau 4 o.J
named before) who deterred Baptifme. i. Some pur-
pofely put it off, becaufe they would live in fin i there
were others living more temperately, taking in as it were
the meane between vertue and vice, who though they fin-
ned, yet approved not of their fins, but were over-power'd
by them. Laftly, (bme defer*d their Baptifines that they
might the better prepare themielves to receive it, and polu-
blyheefora while might bee ranked in the third fort of .
them, that for fuch a thing put off tjicir Baptifine : yet
jhimfelfe reafbns ftrongly againft delayes of that nature,in
that Oration, which peradventure was after hee was b tter
informed.

Thirdly, you bring in Chryfiftemc among your Inllan- Nor Ckr)fift»
C€Sy Educated by Xj^ektm a Bijhep^ yet not baptized tiH hee
jfot paft 2 1 yeares of age : ■■, If you can make this out, you
fayfomewhat, thoughitwillfallihortofthat you intend
to evidence thereby. Chriftian birth, and Epifcopall e-
ducatiou might juftly give occafionto a man to wonder
how iiich a one came to efcape the pri viledge, which other
In&ntsfo borne, hadi if ii were the cufionic to bnjDtize
ftich. Butftay a little, herein you have adhered too farre
to your friend Grotii^^ upon whofe credit you have a-
vouched all this , though neither he, nor you tell us from

E 2 w-i.^nce

28 The GnekChHrch received Infant- B apt 'fine,

wiience you fetch this relation. I being loath to be led by
aTi impllGice faith, without fome ground j after fbnie /earch
I have found that which makes nie think you are deceived
both in Chryfofiome his Parents and edi|cation. The Eccle-
fiafticall Story ( the Penman whereof undertakes to fct
forth the place of his birth, his parentage, his call to his

E^fcopall dignity, and his remo vail from it ) fayes he Was
S^^i 1 ^ ** 1^^^" ^^ a prime family in Antioch^ and names his parents,
^* * * butnotawordof his Religion nor of his Baptiftie. I
could here tell you that fome others (peaking of his Pa-
rents and of himfelfcj fay, -mv-ni'^nauvir^mu^ he and they
were Heathens, (for fb is the word s'^jfygj there to bee ta*
ken) and they that fay fo are Grecians. But however, by
Chryfofiome his mothers own words it appeares that his fa-
ther dyed tvithin a very (hort time after his birth;fo much is
nianifeft from his mother, fee Chryf, de Sacerdotiolih.i,
^ , . , , , , ^ the death of thy Father prefemly foil

^eu&c. ^''^j' ^^'•'^3 ^^^<^^ ttnfeafonablymade

thee an Orphan y and mee a Widon>:
and this felloiit when Chrjfoflome vimQ-ry^ war young and
could o^tjpeak^y asfheefayes, there (hee puts him in minde
of her care of his education^ and of the charge ihe had been
at to improve it; but not a word of his Religion. 1 confeiR
fotf.d^i/7V«rfm -^gppgaresfromC^O'y^j^^we, that about the 20 yeareofhis
Mlf^e^' age his mother was a Chriftian : but whether his Father or
his mother was fo at his birth, it appeares not. His educa-
tion in his younger time was under Lihaniuf^ who was ;an
enemy toChriftianity,andafcofFerat it, untill he was a-
bout 20 years of age: then changing his former fludies.ha-
bit, and profe(Iion,he came to MeUttnf^ by whom being
inftru6ted in divine knowledge, within 3 yeares afterwards
he was baptized of him. After his mothers death, he betook
hhnfelfe to a Monafticall life, in which time hee was much
furthered in his holy ftudies by Carteriuf and Viodoruf^ to
whom he often repaired.

Thefe things conficlered(whichC^r;(/o/?d»ie his own Words
anak? out)you can hardly pcrfwade your Reader that diere

is

The Greek Church received Infant-Baptifmel ,2^

is any (Ircngth in what y 011 bring forth from his example
to plead again ft PiEdo-baptifme^ for y oil neither prove his
Parents were Chrifriansathisbiithj neither was he edu-
cated under Me ptiuiy yet both thele you have affirniedybut
without ground of evidaice.

To all the forenamed inftances you adde fbme^vhat more Graius nor to
out of Grotiti^^ which before I doe examine^ I have fbme- be rciv cd up-
thing to fay to you c jncerning Grotiuf^ whom \ lee you fol- *^".'" f*^'^
Jow in leverall pallages of your Examen. I cannot but ^^*"^*
wonder^ why you (vi^ho pretend to bee familiarly acquain-
ted with the fecrets of Antiquity) fhould have fo much
correlpondency with them who are not likely to help you
with any certain intelligence. Hugo Grotim is the ftrongeft
ftake to Support your tottering hedges and liire I am Gro-
tim was a friend to the Sociniam jBjid k is well known what
they thinke of Baptifine. I have learned from Reverend
Do^^orKive/j that Gr£)/i»/ was perverted by Cardinall Pe- ^i'^ft-Apolpro
rm^ who pleaded the caufe of the Anabaptifts in his an- '^ckllT^r' -
fwerto Ya\\% James, ^.£ turn prot ukraf ^cmgejjit ^(ikith Do- /wJorX;^*'
Aor Rivef of the Cardinal]) in fuam refpgnfiomm ad Kegtm
M, Britan, & Ana^aptifiarum cattfam egit^ quantum potttit^
firenue. Video etemfatisfeciffe D, Grom^ qui in talibm fatis
eti liber alia. Doftor Kiz/e/ told i^rwiw/, that learned /^<?^wf
had fet forth 8 Arguments in Prints to prove the lawful! ufe
of Infant-Baptiime, and defired him to anfwerthem firftj
and then Doftor Kivet promifed to vindicate P^ojfius ^ but
Grfjfin/niadea poorexcu/ein his f'^otum pro pace Ecckfiafiica^ Rivet, exam. a-
and returned no anfwer at all. Grotins that hee might com- "^^'^^. Orotic,
ply with the Papifts^ grants that Infant-baptilme ought to
be received upon the authority of the C hu rch ofKome : and
topleafethety^w»ij»/al/b5 (for it feemes hee intended to
gratifie both) he puts forth this qu^ftion: AnChititij Grotii vetum
abjojnm baptizatus fttit in mmen PatrU^FHii^& S .fanHil pro pace Ecclef, '
If any man defire a full chara<^er of Grotiuj^ let him read *^'*'^'?^»<^k^F.
his Piety, fuch as it is, in that fubtle peece, entituled, Hugo-'
niiGrotii Pietas^ or his Annotations upou Caffander^ and his
defence of thole Annotations, and his Votum pro Pacr, and
he will acknowledge that Grotius was no fit man to bee

E 3 t^uftcd-

5t) The Greek Church recfhed Infant^Baptifme.

trufted, nor likely to deliver the true fenfeof the An-
cients in this or any other point. I will not ftand to tell
you what Lartrentiur^ and Marefius fay of him, but fure they
prove enough againil him; and tkerefore I will put an end
to this difcourfe ^ with that cenftlre which learned Kivet
hath pafled upon Grotiuj^ in Gretius own words ; Judicat
prout amat^avit odit- amat & odit proui lihet, InhUverifis
exa&ijfime defcripfit ingenium fuum^ faith D. VJvet hpologet^
fro vera pace Ecckf, Sir. I (hall deli re you may have a more
fiire friend to relyeupon then Grotius: how far he hath de-
ceived youi and you following him, hath wronged the
tmth, and both of you your Reader; I will now God wil-
ling open,
P, Q . I o. ^^^^ %3 GrotHS (in Annot. in Matth, 19.14.) addesjT^ j^

The Councell *^2 Canon of the Synodof Neoctefarea determines^ That a Wo*
o^tNeoc^f.not man with Chi! de might bee baptized ^ hecaufe the baptifme
againftbaprirm reached not td the fruit of her rvomhei BecAufeinihe cQnfeffion
Qi Infanrs. ^^^^ -^ Baptifme^ each ofiesorpn free ek^ion ps Ihevpzd : from

ipbich Ca 7cny y Qti fay, Bajfamon, and Zonaras doe inferre^ that
an Infant cannot .he }?aptizjtd^ he attfiithath no ponder to choofe
the confeffionof divine Baptifme* Your inference from the
Canon^ gives me jufl: occaiion to thinke that you never read
Bj//drw(?« whom you name; for if you hadj yuu would not
affert what you doc. That this may appeare, I will fet
downethe words of the Canon, the occaiion of it, and
what the GlolTator (mentioned by you) fayes of the fame.
The words of the Canon arc theft :

Of her that i^ with Child^

n^e^Ki;oTopi5^?,?77/eip4)7iCf^/,owfiTi^^A£^- that fljee may bee baptized

■r^s^^^Avyf^a^j^hm^^^^^ r^hen (hee tmlli dr Jhee

ii^KoyU i^iUyv^.Un.e. Con, Neoc4arJtnfis. ' ^h\it bnngefb fortk^ in this

doth not communicate with
the birth that if brought forth^ hecaufe every one mamfejis hij oTPn
free choice in eonfeffion.

Thefcccafion of thisCanon was this, as both your
Gloflators obferve^ it was propounded to the Fathers in
that Councell, to know whether a Woman whcnfhee is
with child might be baptized or no? Tome oppo^d it^

be-

The Greek Chtsrch received Infant- B apt i fine, 537

beeauft (as they thought^ in her Baptilmej the chiMe in her

wombe v/as alft) baptized * and this they held could not

bee, because there is required of him that would profefle

himfelfe a follower of Chrift (^2LsZo?iarM expounds thelaft-

words of the Canon) a free ekBion : or (as Baljamon hath

it} there is required of every one in BaptKhie his own pro -

niife, which an Infant in its mothers wombe cannot doe :

at length it is determined in the Canon ^ the woman in

that condition might bee baptized when (hee would^ &c.

from whence your {ntndGrotius infers, That the Mde nfeth Proles kpn:^ari

net to bee baptized hut of its owm proper mil and profiffiim: and non file ret mfi

to back this aflertion^ hee addes fome words from 'Baljamon f^^P^^^ ^rnh^'

and Zonaras^ as if Balfamon had denyed that any were xo^^^^^^^^^^-^ '"^*

be baptized, but fiich as were able of themlelyes vto • raaloe j

confeifion of their faith in Chrift/, x^ i i ^A.'r.. 1

To vindicate the truth here from ^rotius falfe inference^
and yours alfo inconairring with him therein ^ I defir^.
the Reader to takeinto his confideration thefe two thingsvt

1. Of what kinde of Women the Canon ipeakes of.

2. What the Gloflator mentioned by you ipeakes in the>
fame glofle of Inputs baptized in their Infancy* =Tiie
firft wHl \tt us iee, that what you Ttrotrld infer horn die Ca-'j
non» is nothing to the queflion before-us. ; The fecbnd wilP
letaU men fee that you deale not fairely with your; Reak
dcr. h

H emember our Queition is > , Whaher Infants of heUtveri. p, ^^
are to hee Baptized with Chrifts BapiifihCy ^i . buc thiscCiaJ^j
non^ fpeakes of children of Women as come, ode froiiii i*.-
mong Infidellsj being then converted when they are:.wiiik
childe 5 for B^/^mo« fayes. Such Women- ca rf ere w.ii^

,.-, , U, \. . cUlde^ and come from thkChuYth

cre^^Wim^i?cp^^«^ • ^-^'f^P^W^ of tinbeke^kri: mdi

what is this to 6ur'Qtteftioni>
which is about children bom in the Cluirch: of beleeving)
Parents? ;':;>•. ; !.:rnfc:i :; '■::] Lrr^ib

Secondly^ Balfamon diflinguifhtt bi^difldteny ' ftrflfeat^
-rih/^iVA yctiih the wdmbe, ^aiid not breugfait forth jinn
to the world, 'Othtrs are^«^"»^^ young^ but bdniiiW
' • the

3^ The Greek Church received Infant 'B^ptifmel

the wo rid, for the firft of thefe he fayes^no man can under-
takcjChe meanes in Baptifnie) but as for children that are
borne ^^rafAvct^'^^fAiva^v y^Tctji^vTU, they affirme by fuch
as undeitake for them, and they being aftually Baptized
are accounted worthy of divine illumination: your infe-
rence by ^j//j/»(7;7j teftimony isdire^^ly contrary to Balfa-
mons words, for hee roiundis verbis affirmeth that children
born^do in Baptiihie anlwer by fuch as undertake for them:
which words are mentioned neither by GrotitM nor your
k\(Q : herein you wrong the truth, and labour to deceive
thePvcader:in the beginning you charged me widi over-'
hjhing (which yet was your hafte,and not my errour) but
here I may fafely put you in mind oi docking or Curtailing
the Author cited by you.

Laf Uy, in this Paragraph you tell us that Gfotiw addcs
that maay of the Greel{j in every age unto this da) doel^eepethe
Pag. 10* cufiome of deferring, the Baftiffne ef little ones, till they could

themf elves make^confejjion of their faith : yoH bragge much of
Th G ic the Greeke Church, but I willnotdealewith the Greeke
Church mifre- ^^urches as you deale with the Fathers, I will not put the
ported by Gro- Latine Ghtuth , Augt^fline and thole Fathers and Coun-
tius in this cells which accord with him in one lcale,and the Greeke
point. Church in the other, fuch companions are odious : But

thisIcanandmulHay, that when you have fearchedinto
the Greek Church to the utmoft, that you and all the Ana-
baptifts in England cannot prove that the Greeke Church
did for many hundred yeers reje6i: the Baptiihie of Infants ,
which is the aflertion which I faid might well put the
Anabaptifts to the blu(h,and(now I adde) your ik\i alio for
juftifying them in lb fay ing.
^ To returne to Grotimhis Annotations, who layes, that

many of the Greeks, &c. What fbrhe of the Greeks may
doe at this day I know not, but againfi his teftimony of the
Greeks in every age I will produce fbme teftimonies (ga-
thered by a learned Grecian,to whom the cuftomes of the
Greek Church Were, better knowne then to Gsotiut^ or
the Anabaptifts who rclye on Grotius his relation)
whereby it Mcvidait that baptizing Infants was held e-

vcn

The Greek Church received Infdnt'Bdptipne. j j

even neceffary to be oblerved iii the Greek Church.

P/&o»«f (that learned Grecian) gathering together the ^^ot.patriarch,
Greek Goancells and laws for ordering of Church affaires, ^^'^^^' '*""^> **
and reconciling them one with another, hath many things JJIJ^/^g ^^' ' **
forlnfant-Baptifme: asfirft^ hee brings in an Imperiall ' ^^'

Conftitution, wherein it was provided^ that all baptized
SamaritansandGrecians (hould be puniihedy wha brought
not their voives and children

in their families td holy hap- ^ Wi '!^9Qd)j>V'jTt.^ yaivntti }^7va!tJki7^4hf rue
tifme. Here was a Law *^^'^ *^^^' "^^ ^^"'^ ^a.TvQij.a.v, Tib. i. defide
which required Grecians

that were baptized to procure baptifmc for their children,
otherwile they flhould be punifhcd.

Again, 7z>. 4.0^.4. he brings forth another Imperiall
Conftitution concerning Samaritans ; foch among them
as areof ageniuftnotra(hIy bee baptized 3 but requires
they (hould bee trained up in' good Do^iirine, and then ad-
mitted to Baptifme; but their children, though they know
not the Doftrine^jare to bee baptized. So (o\: Grecians ^
it's required tliat all their little ones without delay be bap-
tized. Cone, in Trullo^ Can* 84. Whereupon it was ap-
pointed in that Councell, when there were no (iire Wit-
neffes to be produced, who were able to teftifie little Chil-
dren (whofe baptifme was doubted of) were baptized,nei-
ther for their'tender age could teftifie it themfelves,without $^tl Ty,v ymmm
any offence fiich (hould be baptized.

Balfamon in his glofle upon that Canon, relates a ftory
how Children comming from a Chriftian C ountrey,were
taken by the Scythians and Agarens^ and bought by the ilo-
mans: the queftion was, whether the Children (hould bee
baptized or no? though fome pleaded , they came from a
Countrey where Chriftians dwelt, and therefore it is to be
prefiimed that they were baptized hvn^mTi^ in their In-
tancyj Some pleaded it was the care of their Mothers to
procure baptifme to them : and others pleaded other
Arguments for their Baptifme : yet if they could produce
no witneffetomakeitgood, they were to bee baptized.
All whid>ckarelyteftifies that Infant- baptifme was then

F gene-

j^ The L atine Church for Infant'Bdpifme.

generally in ufc among Chi iftiansj feeing they were fo
carefiill to have it lellified that they were baptizedj and did
prefanjetvhcrcCJhriftiansdweltitwasinure. '

Now (ee what from thefe teftimonies may bee held out
for Paedo-baptifme among the Greeks^ if fiich among them
as brought not their Children toBaptiimewere punifhed :
tflmperiallLaws^aswellas Synodlcall Canons required
Infant- baptiime 5 which they held fo fit^ that if there
were any Children (of whoie Baptifhie it was doubted,)
they required they (hould be baptized^ may not I from
all this wonder why Grotiin ^or you from him^do afBrme,
C^nc* Carth. 1 hat in every age they deferred the baptifrm of their children
f;<, 14, iiU they csuld makl them/eke J a anfeffton of their fait hi

Whereas the former Conftitutions about Infants Bap-
tifme teit ifie that among them in thofc ages it was held an
undoubted truth.

I might alfo addeto thefe one of the eight Canons con-
cluded in Carthage againft the felagianj-^ wherein was
QSRvmtdiiThatvpbfifotver derryed Baptifme for the remijfion of
finne^ to a new borne Infant^ &c, ftiould be anathematized.
All which being duely weighed, it will eafily appeare^
Whether the Anabaptifij need to blujh^ in faying., that the An-
cients^ e/pecialljf the Greek^Church^reje&edtheBaptifmeof In-
famj for many hundred yeares. Let the feverall teftimonies
of the Ancients in the Greeke Church aliedged by mee,
Ipeake whether the Greeks rejefted that ordinance or no :
And fo weepafifc from theGreek Church here, though af^
terwardsyougiveme occalion to fearch further into the
Grecians.

Come we now to examine whether the Writers of the
Latine Chupdn will be more propitious to you in oppo-
(ing Paedo- baptifme? then the Greeks have beens here Cy
prian is thefirlt that comes under your Examen;, and calatr^
lating his age, you tell iisVJher places him in anno 240, Per-
kjns 2 5 05 1 might tell you that others take notice of him
in otlier yeares, as Trithemiut 245?, Henr, Vc^ta 245; fo
liard a tiling it is^ to fct down precifely the particular yeaf^

yet,

The Lmnt Church for Infant-Edptifme^ 55

yet all (as I faid before) agree in the Century in which he
lived.

You acknowledge with nie^ that he was one of the an-
cienteft Writers among the Latine Fathers; onely TertuUi"
an, you lay, ivai befdnehimhand who denies that ? here up-
on your Semi-Sociniaa Gtotim his credit you fay^ That no^
th'mg was determined in TertuU. his time^ concerning the age
in which children were confecrated by their Parents to Chrifiian
Difcipline 5 becaufe hee dijfvpadeth by fo many Reafoni in hk
BookeefBaptifmey c. i8. the baptizing ^f Infants. And you
adde^ If he did aUowit^ it Was onely in toft of necejpty '^ as
may appear e by his words in his book'^ De Anima, ca» 39,
Though my task in this ex amination of your Ex^men^ bee ^

onely to make good what I faid before in my Sermon -^ yet
you fhaJl have my aniwer to this place quoted by your (elf;
whereby it may appeare there are- more witnelfes to con-
firm the fame truth^which I avoiithed but onely by the te-
fti monies of a few.

Tertnllian indeed in the former of thefe places, is perfwa- ^^^^- ^'^ ^^P^»
ding men to defer both the Baptifm ofchildren^^nd others i^j^y^i^inans
who are of age. Yet I befeechyoutellmei doth he tiot dayes Infant?
therein intimate that it was the cullbme of the Church in were baptized,
his age to baptize the one as well as the other ? otherwife
I fee no reafon why he fhoulddefire that they would de-
fer the one as well as the other. And whafs the reafon of
his delay? fiich as did undertake or promife for children
were in danger; whilfl they promi/ed on their behalf, that
which by reafon of their own mortality, and increafc of
evill difpofition in children, afterwards might make them
breake, or deftroy their promife 5 his words are thefe,
^^ Pro cujufque perfons conditioner ac difp^fitions^ etiam dsta"
te^ cunUatio Baptifmi utiliorejl: pr£cipmt amen circa par^
'uulos. §Hkl enimnecejfe efi^ finon tarn necfjfe^ fponfores
^^ etiam periculo ingeri ? qui et ipfi per mortalttatetn de-*
^^iflruereprBmijfiomsfHOfpeftmty & prav^ntu maU indolit
^^faUi, Is it not evident by that place , that Baptifme
Was adminiftred in all ages , even to little ones ; and
that there were (om^ who undartooke that they fhould

F 2 per-

cc

j5 The Latini Chttrch for Infant-Edftifme.

perform the promises made by them on their behalf? onely
thiscuitome of baptizing them did not very well pleale
JertuUian : wherefore he feeks to dillwade from it^ but ne-
ver pleads againft it as an unlawfull things or an abufe of
Chriits inftitution^ as yon doej yet how difpleafing a de-
lay of that nature was to others (famous in the Church)
hath been cleared by leverall tef cimonies before : here may
you take notice of one, even before Cyprian in the Latine
Church, that beares witneiTe againft you, that in his time
^ children were baptized. This truth is fo perfpicuoufly laid
down by him, that you cannot deny it; and therefore you
Ten, de Ani' come with an [//J and fay, Ifhee did aUow ity it u>as omly in
^^ c. 1 3 • cafi cf nficiffity 3 for this you refer me to his book dc Ani-^
ma^ e. 3 9, where having reckoned up the idolatry, and fo-
pcrftitious fooleries of the heathen at the birth of their
children, he/peaks of children, one of whofe Parents is
holyj and confefles both by the priviledge of their birth
and profeilion they are defignati fanlHtatU^ ac per hoc etiam
falmis^ noty^iw^/, till they be born of water and the Spirit:
Cyprians^ tcfti- but in that place is altum fikntium^ of his allowing baptifm
mofiy f indica- ^^ ^^^^ • ^^ ^^^^ of neceffity,a5 you lay:wherein if a tnan told
you that you did <7i/cr/j/?7,he fhould not wrong the truth.

But before wee part with Tfr/^i/i^^ , give mee leave
to aske the queftion, whether the diflwafion which
you cite out of ttrtnUians booke de /Baptifino^ may
not reafonably bee interpreted of the Infants of I nfidells?
becaufe in that Chapter Termi?ij72fpeakes of the baptifhie
of fuch as were not born of Chriftian Parents, ( (Iich as
the Eunuch^ and St, Paul-^ } and therefore hec dcfires
that the Baptifine of fiich Infants fhould bee deferred, till
they came to yea res, and were able to make confeiHon of
their finnes, andprofeffion'of their faith, their Parents
being Infidels , and their Sponfors Hiortallj for what (faith
hee) though thefe Infants may havefbme Sponfors to un-
dertake for thei. Chriftian education .** yet their Sponfors
may die before they are capable of inftriiftion; and then that
promife is void and of none effe^

Ai^d.I am very much inclined to bclecvep that this is the

true

7he LdtineCht^rch firlnfant-Baptifine. yjr

true meaning of the place, becaufe it is cleare andevi-
dent by the 39. Chapter of his book de Animaj that Ter^
tuUian did acknowledgethatthc children of beleevcrs had
a kipde ofprivtkdge (rvbich he calls prerogative^ by their birth ^
befides that of their education : and therefore in cafe the
Sponfors who undertook for the education of the Infants
of Pagans did live, yea, and give thole Infants due educa-
tion j yet there was a great difference between them andthe
Infants of beleevers, who had fiich a birth priviledge as
gave them right to Baptifnie, and by Baptifme, and the
Spirit, faith he, they are made (what they were by God
defigned to be) holy indeed. Bccaufe I will give you^and
the learned Keaderslight enough, I will tranfcribe the^
paifage at large, and give you leave to judge, for I hope .
you will make it appeare that you are pius Immicus , and
pafTe j udgement upon my Mc , when you have received
fome new light, if it bee new to you: but truly, I fcare,
that you 6w fbmething in this 39 Chapter, whkh made
againftyou: and therefore you doe barely cite the Chap-
ter, and not fet down the words of the Author, which was
not fo fairly done : be pleaded then to perufe the teftimo-
ny in words at length, and not in figures. Him enitn A-^
poftolus ex fafj&ificato alterutro fexft fatiBor procreari ait^
tamexfcminis pi-aerogativa, quam ex inftitutionis dilci-
plina ; c^terum^ inqnit^ immundi nafcerentur^quafi Defigna-
tos tamen (an6tttatis, ac per hoc etiam fzlutis intelligi vokns
fidelium filios, m hujus fpei plgmra matrim^niu^ ^M£ reti-
nendacenfiteraty fatrocinarentur, Alioquin meminerat 'Demi-'
ttica definitionii^nifi quU nafcatur ex aqua & fpiritu^non intro^
ibit in regnnm Vei^ id efi:,non erit fan^ius. Sir, are you nor
now convinced that TertuUian did conceive that the In-
fants of beleevers had (iich a (andity (as I called Cove-
nant-holinefle) by the prerogative and priviledge of theii^
birth, as gav€ them a right tobaptifhie? I would not a-
huCeTertHUian^ as you did Origin and other Reverend and
Learned men, and therefore have given you a faire inter-
pretation out of his ownc words : I beleeve by this dme
you are ficke of TmuUian-, let us confer with Cyprian

F 3 iind.

^^ The Ldtine Chmch for Infant-^Biftifnfe,

and kis 6 6 Colleagues^ upon whom you have paffed a Ma-
giileriall cenfure.
P. 10. CyprianyilsLyyoii^fattb enoHgh^ and more then enough ^ ex--

cept heejpal^ to better purpofe : if that which hee hath ipo*
ken be weighed in the ballance of your judgement 5 his
words, though many will be found but light : yet you Iky
tba^ Hierom^ and zfpec tally AHgufline reiyed upon that Epiftle
for the proving of baptizing If^fants : for my part ^ I s^m
more ftrengtheticd in my Opinion of the worth of Q'pri-
<«w' swords in that Epiftle by this your confeffion: for had
- there not been folidi ty and truth in what hee faid ■, learned
Hierom^ and Reverend Augnfiina (two eminent men in tltie
Church, thoHgh you thinly great darl^nejfe vp^ upon their Jph
riis^ would not have relyed on that which hath no weight
in iti they were well able to ponder the weight of words,
before they would relyeupon them, or applaud them. And
what faith Augu^ine of that Epiftle? 'that Cyprian wof

?i^t devifing any nen? decree^ but
CyprUms non novum aliqiiod decrcfum con- folloived the mofl fure faith of the
dens, fed EccJcfiaehdcm ftrminumm fervans. Church: doth he not therein
&c. Au^. np. .8. adHier, ^ ^^^^.^^ ^^^^ ^^^^.^^ maintain-

ing that Infants] might bee baptized before the eighth day,
diddeviie no new decree,butob(erved faithfully what the
Church did before him : whereby it feems, though Augu-
fiine approved Cyprians judgement, yet he relyed not upon
his reasons to make good Infant-baptifme; this to him
is no new do(9frine, hehadanothereyeupon the conftant
and fure faith of the Church, which in that point hee fol-
lowed faithfiiUy.

You tell me, IfaidFidns denyed not Infa?itr Bapiifme:^ hut
thought they ought not to be baptized before thejighth day : to
this you give no anfwerj and may I not thereby thinke
that ic appeareth evidently to your felfe, as well as to mee,
that P^do-baptifme in that age was in ufe? for this youde^
nynot : and indeed, that this was the qncliion wHerein
/'iafiKj- craved relblution of C;/>rf^«: ftil, whether Infants
werejto be baptized before the eighth day, it appears by the
words of the Epiftle : '^ ^mtum ad can] am pertinet 3 qttoJ

« dixip

fS

7'he Latine Church for Infant- Baptifme. ' 55^'

dixifii intra fecundnm^ vel teriium diem quo natifant^cO^T^
^' fiitfitoj haptizari non oportere^ & confid^rajidam ejfe legem
'^ circumcifionis antiqtt£^ ut intra o&avum diem^ turn qui na-
*^ tw efi baftizandum & fan^ificandumnonputara^&c, Fiduf
qiieftion therefore was, as I faid before: this appcares alfb
by Augiij^, his teOiniony, who adBonifaciumj lih^ 4. contr. a,'
Ep, Pelag, c. 1 8. fayes the fame.

So fari-e then we agree : but you fay^ I might have gone
further i and obprved YiAvx^ hU reafins '^ one rvhfreof jvas
drarvn from Circumcifion^whtch vpof done upon the eighth day
after the birth of the childeiT he other is drarvn from the chlldes
nnckannejfe in the fir ft dayes of its blrth^ which makes men ab-
horre to kife it^ &c, both which are related by Cyprian^ not VeflJiiHrnm-
as his owne judgement 3 biit as reafons of Fldnf his (cru- fi^ntpt mprimis
pies, whereof hee fought rcfolution from him: to both Situti'lmtt^'
whieh he gives the judgment of the Councelljaffurin jj him^ ^^;„ „o« ^z*/ '^e
that none of them agreed with him herein JfF/Wwi did J u-
daize in both thefe, or either of them, what's that to mee^
who fay he denyed not Baptifhie to bee adminiftred to In-
fants ? if the ground hee went upon to tye it to the eighth
day^wasunfound, Ifeeknottojuftifie him in it. Yet let
me tel you^that Fiduf was not the onely man that reafbned
from Circumciiion to Baptifme, though they doe^ not tye
Baptifrne to the eighth day, as Fidus did. Befides the te - Ath. dc Sab,..
Simonies brought outof Athanajtus before^take notice that & circunaf/,
hee Calls Circumciiion a type of Baptifme, Gieg,Nazia7iz* 0^<?^ 40.
proves that Children are now to be baptized, as under the
law they were circumci/ed. Auguft, alio faith the iame,//^.
I. centra Grefion, Grammaticum^ c. 30. & deBapt. contr, D^-
natiftjtb,4i.c»2^. Where he fayes^Baptifnie is as profita-
ble to children now , as Circpmcifion was to children of
old. Chryfnfl, alio Horn, ^o.tn Gene C, calls our Circum?
cifion Baptiftie. But none of all thefe holy men tyed Bap^
tifme to a certain day, as Circumciiion was^ a? Cbr^faftome
(peaketb in the fame place.

How far thefe worthy men Judaized in that age, in fay-
ing Baptifm now comes in ftead of Circumcifion, is not
now to be confidered by us j therefore I leave it.

In

^Q The Ldtine Charch for Tofant'^Baptifme.

P* xr; In the next place, yoii (ay^ The refolution of this Conneeff

is not to bee flighted^ hecaufe upon yonr fearch^joti finde it the
ff ring-head of Infant-Baptifme, It feemes when you caft
your lead into the fea of Antiquity to finde out the
depth of this ordinance, your line was too Qiort, and your
pkinimet too light, that it could not reach beyond this
Epiftle : are there not divers inftanees among the Anci-
ents which make it nianifeft, that before that time Infant-
bapti(iiie was in afe, as hath been riianifeftcd to you alrea-
dy? therefore that was not the firft time in which it fprung
up in the world.

You fay further^ I am miflak^n about the proefes of their o^
ptnioTj^nrhich yoH call not reafint or proofes^but anfivers to obje*
Bions, I will not wrangle with you about words^ call
them what you pleafe^ Arguments or Anfwers : this is c-
nough to me, what I have produced is recorded in the E-
piftle : and all of them doe juftifie the lawfulnefTc of bap-
tizing Infants, which was the thing which I went about
to cleare : neither doth any of them enforce Baptifine
to be tyed up to the eighth day, as Fidus thought.

From the words of that Epiftle, you alledee 3 things ;
I. They thought baptizi?2gy giving Gods grace^ denying it^de-'
'*V nyingGodsgraci, 2- They thought the JohUs to bee hfiy which
were mt baptized. 3^ That all Infants (not Beletvers ontly^
were . to bee, baptized, Tb« 2 firft I grant are rightly colle-
fted from the words of the Epiftle j you mightjifyou plea-
led, havecollei^ed divers other things , as that Baptifme
comes in ftead ofCircumcifion^&c. But fuppofe all their
grounds which they plead be not to be juftitied : yet they
doe not darken the light which the pi ace gives to our que-
iUon. Ifa man were to make good any ailertion of a ne-
cefTary truth, and uiefeverall arguments to make it out;
if one of thefe arguments be not good, or be weake , that
may bee rejeded, and yet the truth ftand firnie, feeing the
other arguments are good and ftrong to evidence the truth.
It is true, ivhen the Ancients (aid that Children were to be
baptized, fometimes they ft ood peremptorily for the ne-
celfityofBaptiimej as if without it no ialvation were to

bee

Tke Latine Chttreh for Inf^mUBAptifmu 4 \

be excepted 5 yet they made it out by other Arguments
then that: why ftiould then the truth juflified and cleared
up by them, be rejec^d for this ? When they were to prove
that men of yeares inftruded in the truth, (hould receive
the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, they made that good by
ieveral Reafonsjas fometimes from the neceffity of the com-
mand which Jeiiis Chrifi: laid upon all the Difciples of the
Golpel,^/^^/ thty might remember his cUath tiU hU coming again.
At other times they urged it, left men (hould brand them*
iclveswith unthankfulnefle in notcomming to the feaft
when they are invited Sometimes again theypreft theianie
duty upon the people to come to that ordinance^that they
might have the inward Grace fignified and exhibted in the
Sacrament, to bee lealed up and confirmed to them. Th^efe
three wayes did they ufe to prcfTe their Hearers to the fre-
quent receiving of the Sacrament ; yet at fome other
times alfo they pleaded the necelfity of that Sacrament ^ as
if no man without the u(e thereof could be faved. No maa
can deny the firft three Ai:guments to be good, though the
laft is not: and notwithftanding the weakneile thereof^this
isaliiretruth. That the Sacr^ament of the Lords Supper it to
he received. So it is here, divers Arguments are brought ta
prove that child ren are to bee baptized ; and amongft ma-
ny, this is one. They conceived the want of it might bee
prejudicial! to the falvation of Infants, which I will not
juftifiej yet Idarenotrejeft the truth made out by other
media^ reafons or arguments. And it is to bee remembred
that this Argument was moft frequently u(ed by the Anci-
ents in theheatc of dilputation, when they had to do with
them that denyed the traduftion of originall fin from ^^
dam to I nfants : howsoever, at fome other times they con-
teilewith Angujkine.^ that fome doe receive rem Baptifmi Lih.^.e.iu
ahfque Sacramento^ a man may have the grace given in Bap- ^'>^^^*^^'^^^
tifme, and not be baptized.

As for the third inference made by you from his words,
thatnot onely Infants of beleevers^ hut ail Infants are to ke
haptiztd : though he layes it down in generall te rmes, that
Rone are to be liindered from comming to Chrift: yet what

G het

42 7be Latm Church for InfanuBaptifn$e.

he fays ought to bee undcrftood of the Church5becaufe he
i^eaks of fich as God hath cleanfed or purified, who were
common»

You conftrue fome paflages of the Epiftle as anfwers
to fome objeftions , which doe no wayes weaken , but
ftrcngthen what I have faid from thence. Onely in the
cloftreofthisSeftion^you would find fault with my gathe-
ring up of Cyprians mind;) as if hee had meant that infant j
are to hee b^ptizid^ becaufe they are under OrigindU fiftne^ and
med pardon* You fay the Argument is rather, that they
' Mve lejfer finnes then other j^ and therefore there is leffr bin-

deranceto them to come to this Grace , remiffion of finne , and
Baptifme, Cyprian indeed iayes, if Baptifhie be not denied
to men of yeares , who hath committed more hainous
fins then Infants, why (hould Baptifm be denyed to Infants,
. who are onely guilty of Original! fin derived to them from
Mam : doth hee not there mention Original] finne ,
which he fayes is remitted to Children when they are bap-
tized : which in his judgement is Iciik then the grievous
ad^all fins of men of year$,added to their Originall fin.
In the farewell of your cenfure of Cyprians judgement,
yoH caU it nak^d^ and Qiy ^ycu would have covered the nakedneffe
P. 12. thereof y hut that the truth ffffered fo much thereby : and fb
can at your pleafiire put upon it the title of an abjnrd Epi-
file. Sir, for one man to flight the judgement of 66. men,
<cminent in their generation, doth not well become a mo-
•deft diipofitlon taught in the Gofpel, to thinke better of
others then himfeJf. I am afraid^^ that when Cyprians Epi-
)flle, and your anfiver (liall bee compared together; the na-
kednefle of your anfwer will rather appeare ; yea, remem-
ber what the Philofopher trampling upon Pl^to his neat
Czx\)tt,fd.idyCalceVlaionis ftiparhiam: yet hceipylngahofc
in his flovenly cloakej anlwered, & ego per rimam pallii tw
am videofftperbiam^ &c. I cannot but account it your na-
kcdnelTe, that if it be naked, you have not in your anfwer
laid open the nakednefTe of it.but though it be abfurd iiv
your eye, yet in the judgment o^mcnremrpned for learmng'
and pitty^ it hath ever hten accepted in tbt Churchy notwith-^
flanding fome miftaj^es in It. Next

The Lathe Church for Infam-Baptifme. ^ j

l^lextto Cyprian conies Augufilm under your Examtnt P, 12.

IVhofe authority ivofit (as you fay) that carryed on Baptifm Mitiflm vin-
oj Infants in thi follon)in2^agej almo^ without controuk: For ^^^*f^<^-
whicfi you bring forth IValjridm Straho^2Lnd ^etrut Clunia-
cenfis tellimonieSjwhich I here mean to pafle overjand take
notice of them in another place.

Iconfe(relearned^«g//jJ/7ze his authority was great m
the Church, both whilft he livedo and ^ncc^ and that wor-
th ily ;n ot onclyfor his defence of the truth which you now
oppofe, but of other greater and more ncceffary truths al-
fo, which hee folidly maintained againtt the adverfaries
who laboured either to iuppreffe or corrupt the fame: al-
beit you (eeme not much to iland upon his judgement :
which with you is of no more value^ then hisproofes and reafons
can addt weight thereunto.Thns you flight hiniathough what
he (aid is approved by divers Fathers and Councels named
by yourfelfe > and how far your barefingle judgement
and cen{ure will out-weigh Auguftine^ ProJper^Fulgentinf^
and the CdunceSjyQwhich you mention in this Ciueftion)let
the Reader judge.

It hath been an ancient juftifiable courfe in the Church
in examining of controverfies in Religion? to look back
upon the writings of famous men who fiourifhed in the
Church before: was not Sifinnius his counfell to good pur-
pofcjwhich he presented to Theodofius (then ftudying how
to put an end to the unhappy differences w^^ troubled the
Church in his time) when hee perfwaded him, dmV^y^iv n i $6^, 7 « 1 2.
©e^V TK? l-nfoJh^ns cOctAif «f : and to demand of them whope-
titioned him? whether they would not ftand to the judge-
ment of iuch as were Teachers in the Church before it was
divided ? cipeciallyl when their judgement diflented not
from the Scjjptures: his counfell no doubt was good and
wholfome j yet I defire that herein I may not bee mifta-
ken. This I fpeake not, as if I attributed more
to Antiquity then to Ferity, I have long lince re-
folved ( by Gods afli fiance) with Hierom^ Antiqua legtre^
probarc finguljy retinere qu£ bona fnm ^ & a fide Catholics
Ecclefis nonrecederej it were happy for the Church among

G 2 uSj

44

The Ldtm church for Infrnt-Baptifme.

uSjif in this unruly age, many (who not content with for-^
raer ti'uth:, are carryed on with an itching diipofition after
novelties) would doe the like.

I return to judicious Attgufiim : Here I expefted your ac-
m.T2iUExamm would have canvaft the feverall teilinionics
in the places quoted by me 5 but lam deceived: Whereby
it feemsyou havenothhig to fay againft them, but that
they evidence what was that Churches praftice in his time
about our queflion (which was the tme andonelyend
■why I named any teftimonies from Antiquity: ) for if they
did notj I doubt not you would have faid fo much : onely
here you tell us what your account is of his proofes and
reafons of his judgement in this controvcr fie: all which
to you feeme to ^ee but light : this you labour to prove in
6 following Seftions, which I will now view, and lee whe-
ther your rpn^hty anfwers wil fatisfie his light rcdfbns in the
judgement of any indifferent Reader.
f wA 'f'our firft exception againft his judgement is^ becaufe he

makes it an unlverfall Traditiofs-y a ftirewd fault, or a dange-
rous pofition;which wil nc^ down with an Anti-paedo-bap-
tifhie. And firft you rcalbn againft it to this purpofej //
the Church had thought it neceffary that all children of
Chriftians by frofejjion fhould hie baptized in ihir Infang ;
then none born within the pale of the Chuixh fliould have
mifs'tof it. But fo it is that many did. Urgo^^s-c, Your
Minor you prove, j^ugtifiinehiwfdk^ Meodatuf his Ton,
zndy^lipii*^ his friend were not lb baptized; and thus you
labour to prove againft Augujiine^ that Infant-baptifm was
not univerfally received in that Church as he laid, which
you thinke to evince by the indu6lion of thefe inftan-
c^s.

Fifft, that it was univerfally ufcd in the Church, tefti-
monies of good Witneffes recording thepra6liieof the
Church make it manifeft ; and wee have heard of fome of
them before in their leverall ages 5 as, lrm£ui lib, 2 . cap-,-^ 9.
(notwithftandingthebaryouput in agaiiift him • ) hee
tells us that Chrift came to fave all forts of people, whether
young or eld^^for they are regenerated by him in Baptifme.

Qfigen

The Lathe Church for Infant-Baptifme. Af

Orlgen in feverall places , as^ i« Luc, 1 4. /i^ 5. in Ep, ad Kom,
& in Lxvit, Horn. 80. in which places he tells us, it was the
cuftonie of the Ch»rcb to give Baptifnie to little ones 5 and
rayeS5notof this or that Church: which by a conftant
courfe they had observed: therefore in his time we find it u^
niverfally praftifed in the Churchy otherwife he could not.
lay that the Church obiervcd it. Qpr, Ep,:^cj, provcs(as we
have heard) that Baptifme is to be denyed to no ageithen
hee Siddcs^^ quant 0 magis prohibertnon debet Infans^ d^c.ihis
he lets down as no new Do^iirine, but faithfully adhearing
to the order of theChurchjas we heard Ironi Angnftine be-
foreimay wee not now from all thefc fiy^ k was in his time
the univerfaUcuftome of the Church to baptize Infants?

Shall I adde other WitnelTes who lived in the fam^Cen- q,^^^ znckni
tury with him ? Chtyftfiome Horn. ad. Neephytos, Amhifs reftimonies for
£p,ad Dif^^triadem Virginem, Hkron. adL£tam^ &lib.l, Infanc bapifm;
adv, PJjg. all which I now pafle over:and are not all theie
WitnefTes of the pra£li(e of the Church? which being
weighed^ who can deny that Auguftme might well relate
Paedo^baptifmtobeeuniverrallypraiftiiedj having fuch a
cloud of WitnelTes to confirm it-

And to manifeft It further^ this is fomewhat to mee; S-
/?z^^j«iwf(whofeteilimony you looked for) in the end of
his worke relating what was generally oblerved in the
Church tells us, TheBjptipm adminiftred in the Church in
his tim ?5 was performed ace ordin ^ to th e Traditio n o f t he
Gofpel, and the authority of the Apoftles; as well as other
myfteries then in uft. And we knowthat in his time Bap-
tifine was adminiftredt(? Infants , therefore in his judge-
mcntj what the Church did therein^ they had authority for
ittrom the Golpel and the Apoftles : to make that good>
lie (ays afccrwards,T/;j^ ^aptifim came infiead ofCircHm:ifi-^
on^vphich then was not in uje.

Furthermore, femetimes Hiftorians relating particular
aiftomes in fome things which were not in ule in (bme
Churches and Countreys^ (upon which arofefome debates
in the Church) doe not mention that of Infants Baptifme
xs one of thcfe particular cuftomes obfervedinfomeChur-

G 3 dies

2^S The iMine Church for Infam-Baftifme.

ches^ and not in others See Socrates Hift. lib, 5.22. it's true,
he relates fome diverfities of Overall Churches about per-
1fbns that had power to baptize, and about thetimcin
which Baptifme was commonly admin itlred; but he men-
tions none that excluded Infants from Baptiftne, whilft o-
thers baptized them; which no doubt he would have done
if there had been any flich cuftome then afoot in the
5'^<. 7.19- Church. Sozom. likewise feting down the feverall cuftomcs
of leverall Churches (though they were of the fame Opi-
nion) among all which Angular cuftomes, baptizing In-
fants is not named for one, yet in ufe in that age: therefore
it is to be conceived as the gencrall praftife of the Church.
Indeed there was a different cuftome^ ( elpecially in fome
after ages) in the manner of b?.ptizhig both Infants and

frown menj in fome places they dipt them thrice, in fome
ut once: and of tliis very cuftome Gregory the great
So^. 1.17- nieanes, when he laith^ In jma pdc nil officii eccltft£ diverja
conjmtudo. But in none of theft Ancients doe I read any
luch diverfity of cuftomes that fome Churches baptized
Infants, others baptized them ncr.if you know any, I pray
you produce them in your next.

Now I come to /peake to the particular inftances, by
which you goe about to difprove this univer/all praffiie of
the Church: yo\\tt]lmcAugHJline rr^ not baptized till a-^
P. 14* bove ^ojeares, though educated as a Cbrifiian by his Mother
Mguflrncf Monica. Firft, I might anfwer you with the Proverb, uxa
baprifin, no ar- hirundo non faclt zer, or that one exception takes not away
fnfams^wefc ^^^ generallrule : if after ages come to read the ftories of
norrhcn bap- theChurch,aftertheLordwaspleafedto begin the Rcfor-
rized. mation thereof in Luthers time: and then find that even

in that time BaJiazzar Tacommitanvs with fbme of his /edu-
ced brethren did withftand Pasdo-Baptifme; or if after ge-
nerations among us fhall find that when God begun fb
happily to advance that blefled work of Reformation be-
yond the pitch it was brought unto in our Anceftors dayes,
if they fhould meet with Mr. Tombes Examcn of this queiii-
on , and therein fee your Judgement again ft the conii^ant
and univerfall pra6the of the Church at this day: if fuch

fhould

fhe Lathe Church f$t Infam-Baptifmel 47

/boiald from a few particular Examples infer that this Was
the Doftrinc commonly received in the Reformed Chur-
ches('i^^/ children fifouJd not be baptize d:')Or dsny that this
was the common received Doftrine that children fhouldbe
baptiaedi aflirredly:, a man that knows the Do^b-ine and
present pra6tife of the Church, might with all reafon de-
ny the confequenccj becaufe fome among them did not
(land for Infant-Baptifme ; therefore the generality of
themdenyedit. So it may be here though r^ peradventurc
fome (though born of Chriftian Parents)were not in that
age baptized in their Infancy^ yet that is no way prejudi-
cial! to the univeriall pra^life of the Churchy in which Px-
do-baptifme was received.

But fecondly^ I anfwer more particularly : I grant Ju-
guftine wot not baptis:^d till hee n^as^oyears old. And I will
not take upon me to determine (belides the generail ob-
fervation of the reafons, upon which Baptiime in tho/e
dayes was deferred by fome, which formerly have been
hinted) what the particular reafon was of his not being
baptized in his Infancy : but I will hold forth unto the
Reatlerfb much as (ball clearely fliew that you have no
caufe from that example to fay^T'^^/ children oj Chrifiians
by profejfionin that age rpere not bafiizedin ikir L fancy -^ be-
caufe you flioidd firll: prove that Au^ufiine his parents were
Chriftians at his birth; otherwife you fpeake not to
the queftion before us; What was the profellion of his
Parents when he was borne? take it from AHguftimhimr
(elfc : who fayes (though Vojfidonim in his life ieemes to
fay otherwi/e) when he was Pwfr, a child grown^ hee fell
cxtreame fick. which put him in feare of death, (then hee
and his mother alio were both troubled that hee was not
bapti2ed:)he fayes of his Father at that time, ^yet he beke- Aug. Conf, 1. 1 .•
ved not in Chrift, When Augufiine was about 1 6 yeares of ^- ' '^' ^^^. "^*"
age, his father was but catechumenuf^ Conf, lib. 2 . ca. 6, Ii> ^^" ^rediderat,
another place ipeaking of his mothers peaceable cohabi'
tation with him, (though he was a man of a haftie difpo-l
fition, and fomctimesuled her unkindly) yet he fayes of
her, mrnmjmm in extr^ma vita ttmporali ejus liter ata eU Cmfc^^,^^

tibi

^ The Lathe Church for Infant^34ftifme.

tihi (i, €.Veo^^ &c* Dotii not that'tcftimony plainly hold
outjtiiat hee was not gained to the Chriftian faith iintill
hecdrew nearethe endof hislife ? and if it was Co long
before he was truly gained to the Lord ^ how can it feeme
ftrange to any, that he whobeleeved not in Chrift himleli"^
fhoiildneglecl^ or it may bee hinder the baptizing of his
Childe in the name of Qirift ?

It isalfo faid oi Monica^ that when, fhee was but i ^
yeares old^ (he was marryed ; her mother taught her to
pray, but we read not ofherbaptifme when fhe was young:
or if (he were baptized when hee was borne, how ftiail wee
know that her husband would give way to her to have
Baptifmeadminiftredtoherfon, (he differed many things
of him whilft he continued an I nfid€ll5as Auguftine conki^
feth. Nay more, it (he were baptized herfelf at his biith^
why might (hee not be conceived* to be carry ed away with
thcenoroffomein thattine of deferring Baptilme till
deathj that they might not (inne after it ? it appeares not,
his Parents were Chriflians (it is out of doubt his Father
was not) at his birth: therefore nothing for the ftrengthe-
ning of your adertion is gained by this inftance.
Aft-erwards Aitguftine put off his ownBaptifm till he was
r^ffiJ. de via about 30 years, and upward, and what marvailc? He was
Aug. a, poyfoned with the Mankhdsan herefie, in which hee conti-

nued almolt 9 years, Conf. lib, 3, c 1 1 . in which time what
,C<?»f, 4 3 » account hee made of Baptiihi, may bee (een in his deriding
of it to his deare and intimate friend (who was baptized
in his (ickiiefTe) by whom hee is fhaiply rebuked for it. I
might alfoadde what hee confeiles^ that the ilrength 'of
hislu(tfiill difpoiition airryed him on to many fins, which
Conf. I . X I.' made him make no hade to bee baptized , quia poji lava-
crumiUud^ major & periculofior in jordihui deli^oram Hatm
foret : fomuch may be read in Augufline himfelfe, of the
caufes of deferring his bapti(mc5which yet can be no pre-
judice to the general praftiic of the Church in that age^as it
is mentioned by himfelf, and others.'
Norhisfonnc Neitheris itany wonder why Adeodatw his fbnne was
AdcedAius, not baptized in his liifancy : for how can wee fceke for

his

The Lafwe Church for Infam-BAftifme. 4 j

his Baptifme in Infancy when as his father was unbaptized?
he being borne when his father was about fome 1 5 . or 1 6.
yeers of age. When Angufiim hinifelfe was baptked^ hee
cauffd him to be baptized with hinifelfe^ Adeodatus being Conf.9,6,
almoft 1 5 .yeers old. Indeed iCAdeodate had continued un-
baptized after Augufiim his baptifine, your objeftiort
drawne from him might have had fome colourable pre-
tence^which now it hath not ; much lefle any weight in ic
to confirmewhat you (eeketo ilrengthen thereby.

hsior Alipius^tMts his fcandalous converfation, hee ^<'"/^ t.
wasalfopoyfoned by the Manichees: and further it ^V^^^f'Vr^'.
peares alfb what miftakings he had concerning the doftrine '' ^^'^'
taught in the Church about Chrifts (bule^ whereupon ic
is faid of him, ad iplam Chrifiianamfidem tardius movSatur :
therefore confidering how long he continued in his errors,
it is not to be wondered at that he al(b was (b long unbap-
tized. So much for your three inftances.

Afterwards becaufeyou feare thefe inftances will not bee
fufficient to make good youranfwer, therefore you grant
with GrotitfSy thjtT^ado-baptifme was much more frequented^
and with greater opinion of necejfiti€ in Afriat^ then rn Afii^ or
otberpartsofthe world: I take what you grants that it was
ufed both in Africa and Afia : and may I not then with Ah'
gftftintfzykwas univeriall^ both among Greekes and La-
tines?

And when you (ay it t»ai more frequented in Africa then in
Apah I know you would intimate that the received cu-
ftonie was, that fome did^ others did it n it^ each doing rvhat hee
thought be^^ hut that the Greekes kffe regarded it then the La-
tines: for fo I findeboth (jrotius^ and the Arminians in their
book Cenfura cenfHr£fi aP,2^,to affirme confidently^but nei-
ther you nor they muft be belecved upon your bai^e aflertion
againft fo many witneffes: yet this Iticks with you, that in
the C^uncells QsisGrotiui fdiith) you cannot find ancienter mtn^ ^^i* ^^*
tionofthat cufiomethen thecounceU of Carthage-. I have for-
merly told you why Fathers and Councells mention not all
things which are controverted in our age, which was this :
bccaufe their care was to refolve the doubts which trou-

H bled

JO The LMine Church for Infant-Baftifme.

bledtheChurchin their day es : if there bee no Canon
concerning it^ why may it not be thought that they did not
mention itjbecaufc in tlieir times none did fcruple it >yct
when any thing relating to childrens Baptifme was ftarted,
then the Church maintained it, witnefTe the 66 Bifhops
afTembledinaCouncellanfivering Fidm about that quefti-
on. I might alfo put you in mind that Confiitutiums Cle-
tneniis make mention of it laying. But baptize yce jour
Children i^^-n^^'T^ ^ Ci^^vTnvii'^ct albeit for niy part I con-
ceive dieleConftitutions not to be his, under whoie name
theygoe^ yet with the beft Criticks I may aifirme this^
that they relate the ancient cuftomes of the Greek Church,
gathered into one volumcj the Compiler of them defiring
to put credit upon them would have feverall Conftitutions
to come from leverall Apoftles.
Fulgent Je fide And aliboHgh it vpas more ufe din Africa then el/e-jrhere^jei
ad Petmmya, jqj^ queftion n'hether they did in jifrica baptize Infants hut in csfe
^®* ofnecejjitieyorfor healths fak^ : I pray remember what TertnUi-

«iw that learned African faid de Anima. Fulgentim tells us
baptifhie is fufficient to walh away originall finne from In-
idLnt^:foHilarius Ep,2* ad AuguftinHm mentions it;, yet nei-
ther of theie (peake of Baptifme in the danger of death : to
which you fay they retrained it.

7 OH mention the difti?2Eiion ofCatechumeni andperfonj JBap-

nzed:,andthe uje of catechizing before Baptifme^, that even after

jiugufin^his dajex the baptizing of perfons ofgrovpne age did

Continue as vpeU m of Infant s^&c. Doe you not forget the que-

Hion before us ? you fhould have proved that Infants were

not baptized, and now you (peake of baptizing of men

of yeers, which gives you occalion to mention the di-

lUnc^ion ofCatechumeni and others, and that is nothing to

ourqucftion, for who ever doubted that even in Augw

/^fwe his time many ftill adhered to Paganifme? and when

any of them had embraced the faith, why might they not

be catechized, and fb prepared for Baptifme, and when

they were found fit baptized? Ajigu^im tould us befbre,thal

his father was Cateahumenns when hee was lixtc^neyeers of

TJien

The Latine Chttrchfer InfaKt-BAptifme. ^ I

Then you come to cenfiire bipti<$ng oft»bole Conntries upm
thi baptizing of thtir King^ &c» which h nothing to our
queftion, otherwile I might relate unto you feverall exam-
ples where you might fee^ what a notable preparation for
theconverjlion of Nations it hath been to have their Gover-
nours ibew them the way^ut I forbeare.

Inyourfecond Seftion you except againft ^ugufltm his p
judgement, hccdiXX^Q he heldtb at Infants mtbout baptifme mnfi ^^'
Ine damned by reafan of origlnall fimuy rpbich it not fallen
away bm by baptifme. I grant that Augujiiney and fbme
others of the Ancients prefled baptizing of Infants upon
that ground, but not onely upon that ground : and they
did mod prede that ground when they had to doe with He-
retiques, denying originall finne to be conveighed from pa-
rents to their children : yet they maintained Paedo-Bap-
tifine upon other found grounds^as formerly I have pro -
vedi therefore this exception is of no vilidity, nor was
this Augtufiintf conftant Doftrine : yea it was a Do6lrine
which hee retraced as an errour^ as (haU afterwards ap
peare.

Againe you faysthatj'^?^ cannot finde among the Ancients the
ground that I goe upon : that the Cavinant of grace belongs to her
leevers and t heir feede. What if you have not found it, will
you therefore fay it is not to be found in their writings ? Ber-
nardus non vidit omnia : why may not fbmc things in the vaft
monuments of Antiquity palfe unfeene by you > though
you have feene mnch^and thinke that you have feene more
truth then all the Ancients did, and can cenfure what they
lay atyour pleafure : But if you did find this in the writing^
of the Antients, it would make nothing for, or againft
me, who have not placed Infant-baptifme upon that ground^
becaufe they placed it fb : I have aflcrted that ground from'
the Scripture, as afterwards, God willing, (hall bee made
good. But that they alfo, (even many of the ancients)
prefled Baptif me upon the found grounds which wee doe,
I have made it appeare out of feverall writings.

As for the judgement of 5e//jrwiiwf 5 Aquino and others
quoted by you,I will not trouble my felfe in an(wering for

H 2 -them :

52 The Latitte Chttrch for Infant-BAftifme.

them : they were not allcdgcd by me, neither will I (land
to their iudgement.

In your third Section you bid mee confider of Jufftfihe
his judgement, holding it neceffary for Infants to recede ibe
Lords Sufptr ^ t'^at opinion is nothing to our qucftionin
debate before us^ therefore you canexpe6\: no anlwcrfrom
meetoit^ for I never pleaded it.

But what is your Argument from htncc^ hugufiim held it
fit to give Infants the Lords Supper^ ErgOi What? draw a
conclufion to hurt me if you can, onr qucftion being whe-
ther Infants were baptized in his dayes.
Fag. 1 6. Fourthly you tell me that Augufiim held a certainety of

"Regeneration by Baptifme^ and ht makes no qtieftion of the Rege^
mration of Infants^^c^ I confefle that fometimes hee fayes
foy yet at other times ( as I told you before ) hee fayes
there are (bme qui rem haptifmi ahfqtte Sacramento b^ptijmi
confequentur^So alfo did Ambrofe comforting Valentmhn his
fifters upon his death (for hee died whilft Ambrofe was on
his journey comming to Baptize hini)where he faid of him,
§lmm in Evangelic geniturM eram^ amifi : fed iUe non am'ipt

gratiam quam popefcit vifajamfruitur sterna qui ha'

buitfpeCHlum tuum San&e pater ^quomodo non accepit gra tiam tU"
am > hee fpeakes confidently of his eternal] eftate, though
unbaptized : yet Ambrofe a.s well as Augu^ine at other times
attributed too much to outward Baptifine.

Fiftly^youfcorne his judgement in defending queftions
putto Infants at their Baptifine, and anfwerd by others.
That's enough to me to prove that Infants were then bap-
tized, though I will not take upon me to juftifie that cu-
\ Home of putting forth queftions to them, who by reafon of
their age were not able to returne an anfwer: polfiUy I
could tell you how,and that many other cuflomes crept
into the Church, but becaufsit is not to our purpofe, I
forbeare.

Laftly, you fay,it is apparent out of that Epifllc of AugU"
fti^e^ T^hat Inj ants ^whether horm ofBfk<i\rs^ or offfteb 09
had not received the Cbriflian f^ih-, VP^rc haptizedi neither doe
I in that juftifie him : you may take.notice that here againe

you

The Laiine Church forlnfant-Baptifme. -^j

ycHi confefle the queftion that Infants were baptized.

But bccaufeyou make fiich a great matter of it that it
mttjl needs follow that they reje^ed covenam-bolinejfe or the hmh"
priviledge of beleeverj l^fanis^ hecaufe they baptized other J/j-
fantj if hroj^ght unto fhcnt . I reply that you cannot bee igno-
rant that many learned men deny thisconfequencej becaufe
they conceive that not onelyfuch as are borne of Chriftian
parents might bee baptized^ but that other Infants aJfb if
any Chriilian would undertake to traine them up in
Chrids Schoole might bee admitted into it by Baptilme5
you know many of the reformed Divines thinke this la w-
tulljwho yet plead covenant-holineflc:, as. further warrant
why beleevers children not onely mayjbut ought to be Bap-
tized : and TeriuUiajj pleads both thefe grounds in the
place I quoted at large, both prerogative of birth, and
benefit of education. Furthermore many of the Rab*
bines fay^ that the children of Gentiles niiglit bee cir-
cumcised if a Jew would bring him up in Religion, yet
they all hold a birth-priviledge of Jewes children, forCir-
cumcifion ; I alledgc all this to fhew that you (hould not
thus vilifieand fcorne their praftlfe and grounds without a
more cleare refutation of them then yet you have made:
whether that which hath beene fpoken out of Cyprians E-
piflle,and Jingujiines approbation of it^doe not advantage
jnycauie,whether they have not proved as much as I alled-^
ged them for,I leave to the judicious and impaitiall Reader,

To all the forenamed Authors I added Hier(?»8<? and Am- i
/r^/e his teftimonies to prove the fame: here you confeiJe
that they were of the fame judgement with Augupne in our
quei^lon^ thereforej^w conceive your anfwer to Augujiine hh
teftimony to he aftffficientanjjver to them alfo : in like manner I
referre you to my reply to your former anfwer.

Your lafl Seftion of this Chapter is a Recolleftion of
what you have already alleadged both for the invalidating
of the testimonies brought by me to prove the pra6li/e of In-
fanc-bapti(me^ as alio of what you have brought to induce
an opinion that there was no iiich thing praftifedin the
firft and beft Antiquity. You muft give me leave to recollect

H 3 what

£^ Yhe Zatirte Cfmrcb for Infan^-Bdftifme,

what I have already anfwered to thefe exceptions and alle-
gations 5 as for your Vives afid Strabo'^ I iliall give you my
thoughts of them anon.

Youconfeflel brought thife teflim^nhs onely to frovt the
pr Mije of Infant- Baptifiney and that you cannot deny they
provcj onely you adde they rather pnrve the thing an errour then
a truth y becanfe praCiiJed upon fetch erromojn groundj. As the
necejjitie ofBaptijme tofalvaiion : The certsinik of the Kemifjion
of original! fenne I the denying ofBaptifme unto none. But are
thcle the onely proofes by which the Ancients did aflert the
baptizing of Infants 5 Ihavcproved, that notwithftanding
lomc of them owned that corrupt ground (and pleaded it
efpecially in the heate of disputation) yet they baptized
them upon the fame grounds which ive doe. Doe not Zcr-
tuUianfyprian^&c. argue from Circumcifion unto Baptifnie
asweenowdoe, and others of them from Covenant-holi^
ne(re>(but this and our other proofes you threaten to confi-
der hereafter.)

In the meane tim^ this you adde ^ (you fhould have faid re-
peate) foryou adde nothing to what you had ipoken be-
fore.

That the T ifilmonia produced prove not that it wjsinpraBife^
hut in cafe offitpfofed xtecejjitie *Lct the Reader judge whether
thefe Teftinionies have not proved it an univerfall pra6li/e,
and fonot onely in c:if€ ofliippofcvl necefiitie 5 and kt Mr.
T'tf/w/'ej but conluk that Booke, which I perceive hee hath
made great ufe of in this Controverfic^ an Armiaian Book
commonly known by the name of Gen fur a Cenfur^^ and that
will tell him that Angufiine may bee faid to bee the firft that
^grounded Infant- baptifnie upon neceffitie^ Ct». Cen,
cap.2^.

Secondly;, you fay there n?a^ fiill in pra&ife a eonjlam cottrfi
of baptizing the growne children ofprofefJeJ bektvas when they
were at /tillage :yi)i\ha.yeieene already how much you are
miflakenin thofeinftances yougiveof fuch a pra^life^ and
how nuidi this praclifc was difavowed by the Fathers of
thofetimeSj could you butfinde as much in Antiquitie a-
gainft the baptizing of Infants as there is againft the

defer-

The Lathe Church for InfanU Baptifme.

deferring BaptUme, how would you triumph?

Th\vd\y^you.f3.y they did conceive alih^ necejjitie pf^ andac*
eordinglj didpradtife the giving of the Lords Supper to Infants,
But did all the Fathers fore-mentioned judge and pra^^ife
fo? you cannot but know that all that plead for them doe
not plead for the other, nor can you (how that all that
pra^ifed the one pra6i:iied the other 3 I confeiTQ fome of
the Africans did fo.

Your £Quvth:,thai they made no difference beivp^m^ the Infants
ofbeUeverj and unhekevers brought unto them^ if it vvere true^
doth not di^rove the practife of Baptizing Infants^ onely
it proves an errouria that pracliie. But ( if by unbclee vers
you meane Pagans) it is not proved to be^ their general!
pradi^e, I thinkeit was praftiied by fome of them upon
the grounds above mentioned , but not found in their
conltant and generall praftiie.

In your fifth yon fpeake cauteloufly that the Ancienteft of
Teftimomes for praSitfe [according to any Knk determined'^ is
Cyprian mere ^00, yeers after Chrifl. Here I muft needs take
notice of your overhfhing^ who before calculating his age
acknowledged him 10 live but 250. yeers^ and here you
£ay hec lived almoft 3oo.yeers. I fee that the Teiiimonies
oi I nfiine Martyr yIren£JiS-y Origen^ TertuHian^ (who all li-
ved neerer the times of Chrift then Cyprian") are made good
againft your exceptions, you finde onely this 'evafion^that
their Teftimonies doe not prove the pra6lire of Infant-bap-
tiCmQy^cdrding to any Rule determined. But Sir remember
our controverfie at pre(ent is concerning the praftife^ not
the Rule.

In the next place you undertake to prove that it roasnit
fo from the begi!»ning:,znit\i^t by many evidences. Now I can-
not but conceive it likely^that Aagujiines Ecclejiafemper habu-
it^ fempir tenuity fhould fway as much with the intelligent
impaitiall Reader, as Mr. Tombeshis Non femper hahiiit^non
femper tentiit ':, efpecially confidering that you bring not in
all the Antiquitie you have produced one manthat dotbtither
derjy the Baptizing of Infants to hdve heene the ordinary praUife
of the Church or that condemne ify onely two you cite that doe ,

advife

^ . n^he Lmffe church fdrIafant'B4fflfme.

advifeAe deferring of it, as they doe alfo tkc BapUfiae
of growne men.

As iivO:,tkfropoundwg of qnefiiom um Infams, which at
Strabo andVm^^idy Jo any reafonahle mctn fay yon wiUthinkt
a ma?iifcft proof e that at fiifi nom ivere baptized but fncb m
u adey ft :wd the faith of Cbrift,

Thisruppofethtliere gueflionsto bee of as Antient ufe
in the C^iurch of God as Baptifme k Celfe, which certainly
you !C3n never prove from Scripuire, and how can a«y
rcafonableman thinke that a nianifeli proofe to whom
Baptifnie was, or was not at firft adminillred.that was not
in ufe in thetiriladniiniftration. I have produced teftimo-
nies bearing witnefTe to the bapti2ing of children, which
plead for it,before you can bring any to witneiTe that thofe
formes of quellions and anfwers, had any beincr in the
Church. ^

Secondly:,your examples of Greg,Naz.Chryf)ft. Auguft, Cok-
ftantinethe Great^hsLvc been already aniwered. Yourmi-
ftafces in their parents, educationjreafons of their deferring
Baptifme, fo made manifeft,as it is abundantly evident they
are farre from proving the Baptizing oWnfants ofChrifti-
an pa' ents not to have been the received and conftant
pradcife of the Church of Chrill.

Thirdly, Greg. Nazianzem and TmnUian nhom yon cite or
diffrvading 5 you have heard even in the phccs cited to you,
the one bearing witnefTe to the prafti/e of Infant-baptifme
the other commanding it. ■*

Fourthly, the Teftimony of the ComceS of Neoc£farea which
you fay 14 plaint agai?2ft if, of the teftimony of this Councel/,
Jet the Reader lookebacke and judge, but the glofTe upon
that Canon to which you referred us, lamfureis aplainc
Teftimony for it.

Tikljythe^lence which y OH impute to the chiefe Tvriters^Eufe-
biuf^&c, is your miftake,not their fault j for Ek,/^^;W, what
thereafonofhisfilenceisyou have heardiaiKlforyour,&c.
if you mcane 7mnllian^ Athanafim^ Epiphaniw^ whom be-'
fore you charged with filcnce in this caufe, I hopcyou may
now heare them ipeaking and witneffing for us.

Sixtly,

Thi Latipt Chwrch for rnfafit-Rdptifme. ^^

Sixtly, for the mzny pAJfages in Attftim andvotfws that eaU
it an ApflfiolicallTraduiony inwhatfenfe cheyarcto^eun-
derftood Uiave already (Iiewed^ and am loath to detains
the Reader with Tautologies.

For your Triwrnwi that bring up your reere and fhut
up this tiril part of your Battalia, Gmitff,Vives^B.nd Stxaho^
(to whom I wonder you did not adde Cerjjura Ctnjkr^y for ciwprer t|.
you are more beholden to them for your Teftimonies of -
Antiquity, iuch as they bee, then to all your other three^and
I dare fay, without dilparagement to your- reading, whoe-
ver lookes in Grotiuf and them, (hall find almoft ail that y oi<
havefpoken in this ControveHie from Antiquity collefted
to your hand.) One of your three Champions I have en-
countred, and I hope dispatched already* and for the other
two rives and Strabo^ I lee they are men of great account
with you. F/z;e/ you quote five or fix times, and adorn e
your Frontifpice with a peece of his, and Strabo yoli men-
tiotiofi:en. But Ibefeechyou Sir, muft wee take the bare
word of Vives a man of yefterday,or of a^SsiSfibo in matters
offaft in things cbnefb many hundred jSfers before they
wereborne, and that againft the exprefle witneflc of io
many worthy and learned men who lived in thole times:'
what evidence doe either of them produce out of Antiqui-
tleto make their aflcrtion good? You know well enough
that learned Voffittf did take notice of Strabo and yiva^
and proves out of Authors that lived many hundred yeers
before i^/r^^o (for hee lived but about 850) that Infants
were bapti2ed in the Church of old^ and wonders that
-S/rji^oftouId rely upon foweake an argument as hee doth,
and I as much wonder that you knowing all this (hould
boaftfomuchof fiich broken Reeds. And fo I leave you
and your men, and (hall expert to fee what reliefe you will
bee able to give them, for they can give none to you.

MoreTeftimoniejyoufajyoHCou^d have added ontoffundry
Author J :vih\ch I hardly belcevc feeing you are forced to rjj^
up an old ufecontinfted in fome Cities of Italy onely upon the
hearefay of ^/Vf X. But thefe you fay are enough -to you,
and you thinkc to any that fearch into antiquity, to prove

I that

^^ The LatineChureh ferlnfanuBdpifmt.

th$t the cuftoitie of Baptizing of Infants ^as not froitt the
beginning, and therefore is but an innovationj 1 verily
beleeveupon your next fearch into Antiquities you willbc
of another n-ind.

And for your confident aflertion that the VoUrim that
Bipufme if to bee given to Infants of Bektverj omly hecaufc
of Covenant-holinejfe , u not elder then Zuinglius : Zmn-
glim I confefTe was a great Patron of this caufe ^ who
in a publike di/pute did fo convince and ftop the mouths of
the Anabaptiftsj that they appearing to the Magiftrates
^nreajfona&ly obftinate were baniflied the Citie. But
wh^^^25 you fay hee is the firft that you can finde that main-
t^iaed theBaptilme of Infants upon this ground , I (hall be
glad to helpeyou j perufe but what is before your eyes, and
you Chall find 7'er/«i7ii«» and Athanafiuf pleadfing the right
of Infants to the Kingdome of heaven upon Covenant ho-
linefle : you may finde Eprphanius^ Cyprian^ Nazianzen^
Augujiine^ Cbryfoflome^^nd others pleading Baptiime to come
in the roome of Gircumcifion^ and divers of them pleading
Infants right tol6apti(me from the Jewes Infants right to
CircumcjJion, which to mee is all one as to plead it from
Covenant-holincfle: you may aKb finde even the Pelagians
acknowledging a Divine Inftitution for it, fecundum fen-
tentiam EvangeliL And now I hope it will not offend you
if I iay> I am fbrry you difcover ib much either igno-
rance^ or negligence in the fcarch of Antiquity^ as to fay,
The Tenet and PraQ:ifc of Infant-baptifmc accordingly as
wee hold and praftife^is not much above lOo. yeersold^ fo
farre as you can find.

To conclude this part of my Treatife about the Antiquity
of Tnfant-Baptiftie, give me leave to adde thefe few things.
Firfi:, that I (hould not have judged it convenient to have
madefo muchfeanch into tliepraftife of antiquity^ if you
had not fo confidently undertaken to fhcw that the ancients
were of your mind, and that I perceive your faire Ihowes
make many begin to thinke it was as you affirme, and there-
fore tnking my felfe bound to give the beft- account I could
with truths I have not onely made what diligent fcarch I

could

Thi Ld^im Church for InfarU-Bdfiipne. ^

could my felfjbuc have airo(which I willingly acknowledge
that no man may thinke of my reading above what it i^)
made u(e of my friend who is better verfed in their writings
then I am, Ictt the truth in this matter of pradife might
fitfer through my weakneile, who have but juft leafure e^
nough to looke into thelc Authors now and then, and con-
fult them upon occaiion. Yet had it been need&llj I could
have added many other tefiimonies out of the Antients to
let you iee that they approved Infant-Baptilme, and affir-
med that Baptifine came in the place of Gircumcifion, as
the Author of the Booke Ve Vocatione Gentium^ 1x9 . l^cap.y
Cyrill, Akxandrin. in Levit. lih, Ifychiur Ffeshyttr in Levity
/i/?.2,cdrp.6. and many more.

Secondly^in thisfearch I find that the Ancients- did not
thinke that all who died unbaptized were damned, as you
ufiially charge them,

Theyconceived that Martyrs were baptixed ; With their
blood, and therefore might bee faved though they were
not baptized with water. When great Bafil dilcourfed of
this point in his Homily of the4o« Martyrs, he faith of one

vJhiTtS.}^' c¥ T« i^stj <^«ft7? 5 He was haptiztd imby another (^or
the fdith tf another) hut bj bif ovpne faith: not in plater ^butin bis
owmhlood. Here Baptifine by water was dcnyed, and yet
ialvation attained by a twofold Baptifme, by faith, and in
blood.

Yea I alfo obfcrve that they Who Were n<i Martyrs, were
in the judgement of the Aricients luffidently baptized by
the holy Ghoft, without blood or water: and torproofe
of this point, I (hall produce a teftimony out ofAugHfiint^
whom I cite tlie rather, becaufe upon fecond thoughts hee
did rctra^ his opinion, and acknowledge that B%>tifme
was not Absolutely neceilary to (alvation, Martyrdome
might fuffic^ without Baptifmc, nay faith and convcrfion
of the heart might fufEce without Martyrdome, or Bap-
tifine, in cafe a man were caft into fuch ftraights, that hec
could not be made partaker of Baptifine , Etiam atque etiam
eon^deram m*ifenio (faith hcc)nmttintu?npaJfiQnemfro nomine

I 2 Chrifii

Sq The L atine Church for Infant-BApifme.

Chriftl^ id^uod ex Bajjtifmo ^eraty foJfefupplerCy Jed efiam fi^
dim convcrfiommque cordis^ fi forte ad ccUhranttitmAiyjitrium
Bapiijrnt in angufiiij Hmf^ntm fuccurri nm potcfi^ in his fift
bookePe Baptijmo contra Vonaiifias , obftrve that hee faitB^
etiam atqtte etiam confrdirafif^ &c, and therefore I told you
this was his judgement upon fecond thoughts^ and more
mature deliberation.

And when this point came to be debated in after ages^ the
Church tooke notice of this Rctraftation, Bernard difcour-
fis upon this fiibje^: at large in his 77. £piftle> pnd proves
clearely out of Amhrofe and Augu^ine that invifible fanftifi-
(ation waslufficient to falvadon without a participation of
the vifible Sacrament. IrrvifibiUm fan&ificathnem quv'
bufd'am ^j^^jfe, & profuiffe fine vifihiUbus Sacrjmentis

Solam inter dumfidemfufficere ad falutem^ ei fine ipfJt

fitffictre nibil^&c. Faith alone faith hee3(that is,faith with-
out Marty rdome ) u fitfficient to fizhation^ and nothing bnt
faith', for though Martjrdome, faith Bernard there, majfupply
the defeU of Bapiifme^ ivee nmfi not conceive that the pumfh-
ment or fi^eringprevailes^ hut the faith of him thatfttffers, Suf-
ficiet fpiritui folu6 (faith Bkfenfis^ one tliafs as ancient as
Birnard^ more ancient then your Walafrldws Strahoy quia
ipfiwtefiimoniumponduiba^a* It js alio cleare and evident,
that after this opinion prevailed^ Tnfant-Baptifme was not
rejected;, and therefore you are extreamely miftaken in this
point. Now if (in the opinion of the ancients) men of
growneyeers might bee; faved without Baptifme^ if they
were either converts, or Martyrs, why may not eltft In-
fant*^ who are certainly fanftified, bee made happy without
ikiptiTme, when they have been made holy by the fpirit of
hoiinefTe? could any of the aacients reafonably grapt the
one,andd^ny the Qther ^ •?" > > ; ; . .

Thirdly, you mav fee that in pleading for this univer-
lall pra£life I Ipeate no louder then other Reformed
Divines, for the antiquity of Infant-Bapdfme. Judi-
cious Cahin who was well verfed in Antiquitie , in his
inftruftion againft the Anabaptifis hath theic wordsi
I affirme that this hoi) Ordinance jof I?fani'Baftifme; hatb

tbtLattne Chftrch forIr?fanUBaptifm€. $g

ken perpetuallf oi^firved in the Chrifiian Church y for there
it no ancient VoUsr^ that difth mt ack^orpUdge that Infant'-
. Baptifme was eonftantly adrmmftred hy the Apojiles,

4, That notwithftanding all this evidence I have brought
from Antiquity, yet I build as little upon Antiquitie as
any other man. I acknowledge what learned Rivet faith
to be very tmtyihat Tradition is in mofi points unctrtaim^md
therefore he that will build fme rmfi huild u-pon the Scripture:
Troinde TseceJJario veniendnm erat ad argument a ex Scriptufli ; .
^uxfiremnm evincaat^frHflra traditionem advocabimus, Ani"
tnadv.inAnmt^ Grotii inCajfandrum^ Art.^,Pag,ji, And I
would have you and every Reader to remember, that I
doe not build my faith upon humane Traditions in this
Argument, nordid the ancients buiJd upon humane tradi-
tions in this thing ; the very Pelagians themlelves acknow-
ledge it upon this ground, FarvuloJ baftizandoTeJJe conce-
dunt (fi\i^ Augufline of the Pelagians} qui contra author ita-
tern Mniverf£ EcckJidS procul-dubio per Dom'mutn et Apofiolos
traditam^ venire mnpojfmi^ lib. J /depeccat, merit, et Remiffi
cj^.26.Nay5they were forced to their owne prejudice to ac-
knowledge that Infants were hsLpdzedJeeundum regulam uni"
verfalii Eeclefi£ &'Evangelii fintentiam^lib, cont, Cakft. e^Pe-
lag. Now that which was preiled from the fcope of the Gof-
pell was not preflcd as a Tradition, and that which was
acknowledged by the Pelagians to be the pra6tile of the uni-
verfall Churchy according to the rule of the Gofpell^was
not built upon tradition. I will therefore cloie upmyte>
ftimonies produced out of the ancient writers, with that
fivourypalTage of learned Calvin^ in his Inftru6tions a*
gainft the Anabaptifts ; C^terum minirm petOy ut in eo pro-
bmdo nos Antiqnitas ftUo modojuvet^c. I doe not defire ((aith
hcc) to borrow any helps from Antiquity for the froofe of this pointy ,
any whit farther then the judgement of the Ancients fhaU be found
to bee groundid on the Word rfGod :for 1 know full weU^ that as
thecufiome of men doth not giv^i aufhorhy to the Sacrament^ fo the
ufi of the Sacrament cannot mfaid to berigbf^ andregtdafy be"
csufe re^latedhy cuflopie*

1:5 PART,.

*The middle Pmes between Augufiine and Lnther,

♦♦»»♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦»♦♦♦♦=♦♦»♦♦♦♦=♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

P ART 1 1.

; Aving made good the pra£Ufc of Antiquity for the
Bapti2ing of Infants, I follow you in that which
you arepleafed to make the fecond part of my
Sermon, which you call prejudices again ft Anti-
psedo-baptifts 3 from their noveltie and miscarriages.
«^ JVhere^firJt, ym blame me for fit king by prefacing and fitting
^^ duwne a hriefe touch of the Anabaptifij carriage in Germa*
^^ ny^ to create prejudice in my Auditors,
Anfvp, To which 1 anlxver, that I yet never learned that a briefe

fettingdownethe Original! Hifiory and State of a Contro*
verfie, or th'i rveigbt and confequcftce of it^ thereby the more
to ingage the Readers attention, was^ againft any Rule or
Law of Art either divine or humane- but in cafe it were a
fault, ^w tulerit Gracchoj} You who begin your booke
with telling, bow nim monitht finceyou frm thus mjiny ArgU"
mentsinLatine^drarvneuf in a SchoUfiiqHe way^&c. andne^
ver Jet received any Anfrptr^ andin the end of jour beoh^ mtima-
ted that though^ joh allovced me but a tnoneth^ yet I have i^pt
your book^a rpbokyeere unanfrvrnd: and throughout your
whole Treatiie/?w^ to mak^ an ofieTiiatspn. of r fading^ and
put abundance ofjcoffes and jW^J upon thpn "wfeo are of a
cofttraiy mind to you, ^nd feke to loade the opinion
you write againft ' as if it carried all kind ef mifchkfif in tbe
vpomhe of it* All which things yoii know well cuoqgli kre
apt to take the people 5 but have no weight with them who
ufe onely to weigh Proofe with Proofe,^d Argument with
Argument: you 0 fay) of all other (Jiould pardon fiich a
peccadillo, and migiit very well have pafled over what ei-
ther my felfe or Dr. Featliii Frontilpice^ or Mr, Edr^ardj

his

wtre for Infafa-Baftifrnf* ^*

his expreffions might fecmc to bee lyable to, of exception
in this kind.

In your fecond Scftion you blame mee for two things j Reply to
firft that *^ Igaviyou no mm Hght out of Auguftimy to k^oxv ^^^' *•
*^ vpho they mre that qm^ismd Tsdo-Baptifme in hU dajes^
** you have fearched and cannot finde any^ the Telagians you jc
^^ k^omkdge oppofeditnot^ihe cufiome rpoffo unwerfaU ^an defied'-
*^ medfofa:redthaitheydurfin0t oppofe it.

All the further light I fliall now give in a nutter of no ^nfi^*
greater conlequence is, that if you cannot finde any in Jh-
g«^iw/dayeswhoquellionedit, I am contented you (hall
beleeve there were none.

Secondly, ^^ jote blame me for making fncb a kape from Aw
*^ gffftmej thne^io Baltazzar FacommitartutySf if be n^eretkefirji
'^ vphoeppofedity whereat y ou aUedge many n>ho op pofed it /^oo ,
^^ yeere J before his iime. To whichi anlwer, I fayd not hee Anfv^
was thcfii-ft xvhofe judgement was againft it, but the firft
that made an head againft it^ or a divifion (or Schifme) in
the Church about it. It is polTible men may hold a private
opinion diiFering from the received doftrine, and yet ne-
ver make a rent, or divide the Church into fa6i:ions a-
bout it. "^^^! themld-

But let US examine your inftances; you ^^ affedgethefa- f v^^een^rhe fI-
^ mouf Berengjtrztis a§ one. 2. The Albingenjej. 3. OutofBer- rhcrsandLx-
*^ nardyou mention another namekfft Sett, 4. Fetrw Clunia" Jherv,-ere tor
^^ cenfis^ charges the fame upoa thefeiro-Brufians, Baptizing Jn-

1FoaUwhichIan(wei^firft5in'generaB^^hat (thefein- ^^^^V
fiances of yours having occafioned mee to make a more dil- ^'^^'^
ligent (carch into^thedoftrine andpraftife of thofe middle-
times between the Fathers,and the beginning of Reforma-
tion in Luther J time) I dare confidently think,that you will
have an hard taskcto prove out of any impartiall Authors,
that there were any compny of men before the Anabap-
tifts in Germany, vpho reje&ed the baptizing cf Infant j out of
the cmfepon of their faith 5 poffibly fbme private man might
doe it, butlfhalldefireyouto (hew that any company or
Seft(if you wilifb call them) have ever denied the law-
fulnciTeof baptiabg of Infants: produce if you can any

4: ^

£^, The middUtimes between AHgufiin$ Aid Lmher^

of their ^ronfcflions, alledgc any Afts of any CouncelU
•where this do(^rine was charged upon any, and condem*
ned hi that Councell; youknow, the-gcneralitieof thevi-
fible Chriilian world was in thofe dayes divided into the
followers of the Beaft:> and the ftnali number of thofe who
followed the Lambe, who bare vvitnefle to the truth of the
Gofpel in the times of that Antichriftian Apoftaiie, thcfe
were called by feverall names, Bere/fgarians^Jf^a^denfdS^poQre
mcnof Ljdtis^AlbingenfeSy Catharifij^ Vetr-Brupam^ and fe-
verall other names, as may beefeene in Bifliop Vjbers book
of the Succcllion and State of the Chriftian Churches.
Now all grant that the Church of Koim even in thofe
dayes, owned the baptizing of infants, and (o .did all thofe
perfeciited Companies or Churches of the Chriftiansy for any
thing I can find to the contrary. Several! Catalogues of
vP)?r dcfuc- their confeifions and opinions I foide in feveraJi Authors,
cejfme,ccip'6 . and more perticularly in that forcnamed booke DifucceJJio-
SeU. ^^-^^' ne Chriflianarum Ecclefiarum, But not any one of them de-
cap.S.s>^tt.i4r' Yiyi^nr this point jthey indeed denyed any Sacrament to con^
deburgfenf, 12 prre grace ex opere operato^ and thereupon lome oi their ad-
Cap.^ col, verfaries would lay to their charge that they denied grd-
12 05. tijtn Baptijmi^ the gvzce ofBaptifme: And others of them

denyed the trumperies that went along with Baptifiiie in
the Church of Rome : And thereupon fome of their adver-
faries charged them that they laughed at the Baptifme of
Infants : but I can finde none who layd to their charge fim-
ply that they denyed the lawfuh^efTe of Baptizing of In-
fants,except onely fuch who alfo charged them with Ma-
nicheKmeand other abominable doftrlns & pradifes, which
we all beleevethey utterly abhorred ; Nothing tcndcs more
fully to manifeft their doclrine then their o^vne confeih-
EdtdT^znr Li- ^us, one whereof was publiihed by Baltazzar Lidiw wh ich
dii^j'om.ii, was prefented to Vlaiijlam King of Hangarj : In their Apo-
Fag,^S<f.(!^c. ]ogie and defence of their doctrine, they have a vrhok Chap-
of the *^'' wherein they aflert and prove Paedo-Bapti/rne largely.
midelfes. lib. Theconfellioii ofthe Taborites hath not a woi\J founding
I cap. ^.p, 10. againft it. I tinde alfo in the Hift ory of the Waldenfisy this
25 fet downe amend the calumnies unjufrly cafl upon them,

rhat

mrt for Infdm-Baptifim. ^^

^yi they reje^ the Saptifme of Infant f^ for wHich Bernard is

cited in his 66. Horn. inCmt. but of this they arc purged ub.i.e^p ^,

out of their orvne rvridngSy and there the ground and occa- pag, i j .

fion of imputing tliis errour to them is expreiled line 15. LiKcap, 6pag,

True it U^ that having been conftrained fome iQO^yters^&c, "^l*

The fame Author in the third part of his hiflory^ pr ofefTed-

ly lets downe the do6i:rine of the IValdenfes^ and ^lUgznfij^

and among other things concerning Baptilme, he exprefles

this ; Andrvhereai Baftifme is admintjlredin a fallCongrtgati-

en ahdfor this caufiit U that fPe prefent our children in Bap"

iifme^which they ought t9 doe^ to whom the children are neareft^ as
parents^ &c, Waldenfs againft the IVichfevifis and H«#f/ ^-^^ ^ 3-/,^^^
imputes this herefie to ibnieof the LoHardj^ that beleeverj cap.%i^
children rvere not to bebaptt2:^dy and that Baptifme was to no
purpofe adminidred to them, fiCmdHm ritum qii^m fervat ,
Ecclefia^ but he imputes it not to fKfc%/> followers ingc-
nerally onely afcribesittoibme LoBardj erf the Highlandj in
Scotland^d.nd (bme few of the Vhcejfe of Norwfc^jand yet in
the fame place confefles hee hadfeene none of their writings
to that purpofe, nor knew what their grounds were, but
onefy had tranfientij heard that they ufed to produce
I Cor. 7, SanBificatus efi^ &c,

2. 1 anfwer to your particular inft once ffirR;,^or Berengariuf^k VfherdeSuc-
is true that Veoduinus Ltodienfej tooke it up as a common (^^f^P-T.Se^'
famcj and upon his credit Gnitmund Archbifhop of Averfe ^ygniarim
relates it: But faith Bifhopt/jZ^er, info many Synods held a- cleared from
gainft Berengariitf^ wee never find any thing of this nature Anabaprifme,
Iaidtohischargc:andtoi?jwit appeares that they who in
thofe dayes were charged to hold that Baptifhie did not par-
zm^projicereadfaliitem^ held nothing bat this^that Bjrf/i/w*
doth not conferre grace ex opere operato.

The fame anfiver ferves for the Albigenfes and H^aldmfes'^ Waldenfes.Al^
clcareit is that neither Mneai Sylvian in his booke de Ori^e bj^enfesy (jrc
Bebemorum^ when he fets downe their opinions^ nor the cleared from
Magdeburgenfejj who out of an ancient Manufcript relate Aoabapnfme.
their doftrines^no nor WiUiam Reynolds in his Calvho-Tur^
c//wwf jwherein he indeavoursto reproch them, layes any
fuch thing to their charge. Surclamjthc confeffion of the

K faith

66 Tbe middle tims IfitwUn Auguflini aftdLmker, ^

^^/h.ubifuph CA, faith of the Alhlngenfis recorded by H9vedm doth enough^
^.5f^,34. andniorcthen enough owne the baptking of Infants. Tis
trntj^emard in the place cited by you fayes of thofe Anony-
mous people whom he wrote againft,(who were no other
thenfomeofthe l^alilenfej') Imdetfi nesquia hapt'tzamwlir'
fantej^ and the reft of the Doftrines which you mention, but
withall in the fame place charges theni with Mancchifrac,
and relates how the people threw them into the water as if
they were witches, and when they would not iinke they fell
upon them with ftones and killed them 5 and if you beJeevc
Bernard flandered them in theic trro laft^ you will forgive
the Reader if he beleeve that he did no lefle in the rtber.
iVndasfor whsit FetrufClMniacefifij writes againft Feter di
Brtm and his iiicceflbur Henryy the truth is, thefe two men,
did for 20, ycers tjogcther €0 much fpread the Doftrine of
the pyaUefffify and Co plague the Biihops Miters, and the
Monks bellies, that I wonder not though they charged any
thing upon them which might make them odious to the peo-
ple. He who reads that ray Dug booke of Petrttf ClMniacenfij^
will find that he acknowledges moft of what he layes to their
chivgetobe upm the report afotinrfy and layes this for one
of their Articles,thatCibi/^r«72»»A^ died before they eMilda^usl^
ly beleeve rpere damnedy and that they would have all Chnr"
ehes demolipedy snd incoMraged people topuU them djwnt'-, and
that common fame gave out that they condemned all the
Latine Fathers, and not onely excluded the latine Do6l:ors
€ Cathedra VoBorum^ but e regno C^krum-y that they did oof
altogether beleeve the Prophets^ Afoftks^ nor Chrift hinr-
ielfe. And no marvaile that thefe opinions fhould bee
charged upon them, though they held them not, fee-
ing wee find this particular charged upon Luthtr^ Calvin^
Jof.Vkecem. ^"^ Beza^who did all in (peciall manner ojyole this crrour;
iiffeuEccL Vcl, So that untUlyou or ibme other doe outoftheir ownecon-
Xz^.i.w/?. i.;^. feffion^orfome other impartiall and authentique Regift«r
10^. give better evidence then yet you have done, I fliaD beleeve

that this doftrine of oppofing the baptizing of the Infant!
ofbeleeverSj is an Innovation no ancienter then the Ana-
baptifts in Germany ; concerning whofe pra6Wc$ wee now
proceed to inquiry. In

In your third Scftion you take great paincs to (hew Out of To ScH. 5 •
your reading who firft in Girmany ilirrcd this queftion. I
(hall not ftay the Reader long about it, bccaule your felfe
grant that it is not /«wii 5 I deny not but Nieholaw Storch^
Marcm Sm^ner^ and Thomas Mtmcet did bring it firft upon
the Stage about 15215 or 1522. and that by Munc^s do-
ftrinc^ a iad (edition was raifcd in the upper Germany^
anK)ng the Country people, but bccaufe this Baltazzar Hub'
mir^ acommuamt^Pmor o{ the IValdjhnt^ a Towne neere
the HthetianjpW^s a man of greater note for learmng> of an
a3:ive uu-bulent (pirit, one who both by preaching and
writing much fomented their way^Sc was in very great repute
among them, I feared not (as others have done before me)
to name him as the Antefigmtmif of that unhappy Sedl : of
whofefeditiouspraftifcs, dodrine^ recantation, Apoftafie,
and miferable death, for which he was cfteemed a Martyr
by his followers, I might out of many Gerfii<««e writers ea-
filyinforme the Reader, iflafFefted aneedleflc oftentation
of reading.

InthisSeftion upon occafion of the name of Anabap-r^i « «
tifme, and reiterating of Baptilmc, " yoH defiredto have it ^ '^'
^ proved unlMpfuU to repeate Bapifint^ or for a man tkat hath
*^ bfine baptized rightly to be baptized agaiffe : and afterti^ard
" hi jottr third part Seel, 12^ you profejfe you m-t mt frttjfied^
^* but that both Circumcipon might have beeii^ and ^aptijme majf
^^ htrtittrattd'.andhtrtyouddde tbattht Argument ufed againfi
^^ the repetition (fBsptifineare infitfficiem • andthat if there pfere
^^ but at mufh for baptizing of Infimtj^st Ad:$ 1 9. 'yi6. affords for
^ ^ r^ap^tKAtim^he cantroverfit pptre at an end rpitbyou*.

I aufwer, you here clearely difcover your itch after new AMfp^»
opinions, your joyning with the Marchmtes and JEtianSy
who allowed it to be done atleaft thrice. I (uppofc in your
next wee (hall have your Arguments to prove the lawful-
fiilneffc of it, which if you doc, I befeech you alio to (hew
how oft it may bee done, whether as oft oi the Fharifees
ufed to wafh; atka(t (bccaufe your anfwers here (ceme to
imply fo much) whether it may not be repeated at oft as wet
P^uld attend upon the preaching of tbt word^ or at oft at wee

K 2 fhould

58 Rebdftiz>Ation ef fmh 4s Are

Jbonld tndeavour to moriifie our corruptions / In the nieane time
Vide VcJJii I (hall tell you fome of the reafons which have hitherto Ta-
Tbfesde Am- tisfied the Orthodox Church in all ages.
^ftifi. FirftjBaptifme is primarily and properly the Sacrament of

rebaprizacion ^ur new birth, thewalhing or regenerauon^ which is done
of fuch as are but once^the Sacrament of our inlition into Chriiljwhich is
rightly bapti- done but once 3 the Sacrament of our admiflion into the
^^^* new Covenant, and partaking of the benefits of it;> and( al-

though many ofthofe benefits and priviledges are repeated
and augmented;, yet) we have but one admiflion to them.

Secondly, in no place where the Inftitution of it is named
is there anymentionjdireftly orby confequence^ of any re- '
peating of it, nor any order taken about its whereas in the
other Sacrament, 'Weh^Yea.qj^otiefeunque in the very Infti-
tution : nor in any of the thoufands baptized in the Scrip-
ture is there the lead hint of any example of rebaptization
of fuch as were rightly baptized, no not though fome of
them had played the Apoftates, as the Galatiansfiymc of the
Corinthians and many others. And niee thinks this Argu-
ment (hould mowcjeu whofe principle is,that nothing fhould
be done about the Sacraments, but what wee have either
inftitution,or example for.

Thirdly,Baptifine iiicceeds Circumcifion,^^^ ivas but once
adminiftred nor to be adminiftred any more^ as is cleare to
mee not onely from thetotall ftlence ef the Scripture^ but out
of J(jp, 5* 4.&C. where the holy GhSft is pleafed to give
this as a reafbn, why Jojhuah Circumcifed the Ifraelites m
GilgaV^ viz, hecaufe all the Circumcifed r^ere dead-^ intima-
ting that had they been CL'oimcifed already, it fhould not
have been done againe. Befide, by Gods inftitution it was
tied to the eighth day and unlefle you can find another
eighth day after the birth befide the firft, you will never
bee abkto juflifie it from being a breach of the inftitu-
tion.

Fourthly, to this I might adde the uncontr'adi&d cu-
fromeofall the ancient Church, with whom it was num-
bred among Herefies to reiterate a Baptifme, which was
acknowledged tojbe valid: Indeed Cjfrian and his jfellow

Bidiops

rightly Bapi^d^f roved unUwfull. ep

BKbops baptized fiich as had formerly been baptized by He-
reticks^but it was onely becaufe they thought the Baptifmc
adminiftredby Hereticks not to bee true Bapciime. What
ivdght thefe things have with you I know not 5 the judici-
ous Reader will confider ot them.

But whereas you adde *^ tbat if you fan? but oi muchfor bap^
" iizivgof Infants as Ads ip-^-^^t-'v (Jprds for rebaj>tization, ^

'^ the cofttr over fie n^ere at an endmtbjoHy give me leave to tell '^^J'^*
you that I perceive a (mall Argimient would fatisfie you if
wee could but once gaine your good will* As will eafily ap-*
peare by a (erious examination of the (enfe of that place,
^(5. I9»which it (eemes fatisfies you for rebaptization. I Aa.19.5,6.
acknowledge. Interpreters differ very much concerning the vindicared
meaning of that Text, but none of their expofitions doe in ^'^,"^ favoring
any degree favour that opinion , that fuch as were once ^^^^i?^^^^^^^-
r/glf/y baptized may be rebaptized; which I thus manifeft^
viry many Interpreters doe judge that thofe twelve Difci-
pies were not baptized in that place, and they make the
iikhVerfcyfi^henthey heardthii they nere baptized in the name
of the Lord Jefuf^ to bee a part ofPaulj fpcech, not of Lnkes
the Hiftorian, and then the fenfe is this, when thofe twelve
men had told uPW that they were baptized with JohniBap^ y^ j/^jjj^ j;.^.
tifme, Pj»/t()oke upon him to explaine to them what f^/ ^e B^;»/;j^wo
yoZ7;7xBaptifmewaSj namely that Jv^ni miniftry did firft J^han.fag.^oi,
exhort men to repentance ; and theit that they ftiould be- ^^*
leeveinChrift, who would give all them who bcleeved in
him the gift of the holy Ghoit, which after John had fiif-
ficientlyinftrufted them in, he then baptized them in' the
name of the Lord Jefus, which lay they is a paraphrafti-
call interpretation of this fifth Verie : and ib Paul having
approved the doftrine and Baptifme of Jokn^ which thefe
twelve Difciplcs had received, hee did not rebaptize them,
but laid his hands upon them, and then the holy Gholb im-
mediatly came upon them. Other Interpreters thinkcjthat
thcle words in the fift Vertare the words of Lnke the Hifto-
rian,and that thefe twelve Difciples were then baptized af^
ter Pi2«/ had done his fpeech>and of thefe fome conceive that
thefe were firft baptized by fome Gilobns Difciplcs into lohns

K 3 xiaa^c.

To Se&,S'

RjtbAftUMhn effuchasdfe

namCjaiKl not into Chrifts: and fo their baptifin was a nul-
lity, or at leafti if they were baptized into Chrifts name^yet
they were not inftm^ed in the right faith of the Trinity^
ofJefusChrift, his perfon^ gifts j and offices; and focon-
fcquently that their faith and BaptJfme were deficient ift
Ibme fundamental! and eflentiall things y and this way go
many of the Fathers, and Schoolemei-u Others thinke
they were rightly baptized with Joif^s baptiinie , and yet
were baptized againe by the Apoftle Taut*, becaufe* they
think that jf^Ws baptifme^ and Cbrifi*s did really differ ;
and that the Lord would have them re baptized^) who were
baptized with Johr^s baptifme onely 5 but not them who
were baptized with Chrifts. And this way generally goe
the Papiftsmow whichfoever of thefeyou take, here is no
colour of rebaptizing of iuch who were rightly baptized
with Chrifts baptiftne : and indeed, whoever conliders the
Text, muft needs grant that if they were re-baptizedjit was
becaufe of the 'deficiency of the baptifm which they had re-
cieved.P^*/ demands of them. Have you received the holy
Ghoft fincc you were baptized?They anfw-The holy Ghoil!
what meane you by the holy Ghoft ? wee never (b much a«
heardjwhether there be an holy Ghoft :No?((aith ?^//)what
\vcre you then baptized into ? what ftrange kind of bap*
tifine have you received ? what Do<^rine, or Faith were
you inftrufted in before your baptifme ? if you never fo
much as heard that there is an holy Gkoft. Doth not this
plainly hold forth, thac if they were re'baptizcd,it was be-
caule ^W thought their former baptilm to be infufficient?
Truly Sir^ I conceive joumighteaiily be perfwaded, that
thercareatleaft as good grounds for Infants h^ptiftne, as
this ^&J 1 9. affords for re-baptizing of (iich as have been
rightly baptized.

^^ In this 5. Se<^ion,I very much wonder a« your Ipiritithe
*^ iumme ofkiSyTbat aithugb much of what I Jptak^ of the
^^ Ansbaptifij in Germinj(^efpiciaUj about Mttnjieryt true'^Yct
^* you (ay, i. Perhaps vehemtng of off option hath made mat"
^^ ters more or worfe thin they ipere^ 2 . JV* marzaile thougb

''fuch

rightly bapt^d^ fr^vedunUwfulL Y^r

^^fiich things happen^ tvbm Keformation of. abufts is denied men
^' by an orderly SynodicaU way-^ and tbeferfonj voho feek^ it , de-
^^ clAymedagiinfi^andperficmedaiHeretiquts^&c^ 5, Ty^^
'* the Hkl things^ if not the fame^ hapfemd among the Noft-con*
^^formifls^ andfuch ^feugbt to remove Epifcopacy and Certmo"
^^nia in ^eene Elizabeths dayes-^ that fome of them gretv to bee
^' a danger otif and tHrbtilentSe&i the pra&ife ofHackn^and
^^ his cmrpanionr proved like that of John a Leiden at Muni^cn
'^ That mifcarriagfj^ divyionSy and perfecutions brongbi the
^' Non^confirmifis of England as lon> as the Anabaptipj, That
'*• Whitgift j;7d? Hooker havt longagoe compared the Non- cun-
*'^ formifis principles andpraHifej vpitbthe Ana^aptifts^ &c.

To which I an(wen Firft, I am confident you (hew more Anfp^^
good will to the AnabaptiftSjthen yoii intend ill wil againft
th ofe worthy men who have wriaen thefe Stories : but t he
things havebeen done fo lately, and ib many agreeing fto-
ries are written of them^ and by men of mch undoubted
faith and honefty, that the things are not to be queftioned.
And I think you are the firft of our Divines who have fu-
ipeftcd them to ovcrlafh in their relations.

Secondly, what you meane by denying Reformation to
them who feek it in a SynodicaU way, &c I can hardly
guefle: whether you intend it to excufe the Anabaptifts in
part, and to blame the Reformed Churches, as laying that
Humbling blocke in their way , by refiifing to heare
them, or whether you hint it as a warning to our felves.
Asforthem^I never read that they fought Reformation
in a regular way, or were dcnyed it, before they fell into
thcle furies . And as for our (elves, you arc the onely man,
^o hath pretended to feek Reformation (if it may befb
callf^i) in this point h the reft of bttr Anabaptifts leek not ^hc old Noo-
toourAflembIy;unlefleitbetoreproach| and load them ^^^^^'"^'^^^ '"
with fcoffcs, libels, threatnings, &c. S^s.^St

Thirdly,butthc reft of this Seftionistomc extreamly againft Epifco-

f fcandalous, when I read your odious comparifons between pacy and Cac-

the Non-conformifts in Queene Elizabeths dayes, and the n^onics^J com-

Anabaptiftsin Germany'^ it even grieves mce to coniider, ^^^baptift/m

whither affcftion to yourcauft doth carry you. Sir^ are o"^^

you

7^ The Non-coHjormifts not t$ ie cemfrnd

you perf^jvaded in your own confcience thefe things are ro>
The Anabaptifts in Germany rofe upland with fire and fword
pulled downe Magiftracy, Schooles, 8cc. wrought wofuU
Tragedies in upper Germany ^^ in UHsravh^ ^Uefia^Hdvetia^
and elfewhere; did the like if not the fame things happen
herc? What did the Non^confurmiris ever endeavour to
doe beyond prayers and teares? what turbulent Seft was e-
ver found among them? what were thofe diviiions and
niilcarriages which brought them fo low ? the perfeaui-
ons of the Prelates indeed brought them low j but f pro-
feile I am wholly ignorant of any diviiions and mifcarria-
gesof theirs in that kind: Hacket hideed was a blasphe-
mous wretch , and hee and h is two C ompanions (for no
more there were of them that I can find:)Cof fiwger^and Ar^
thington made a noile in the City oi London for a few hours.
Hackft was taken and hanged for his blasphemy, his
two Companions laid in prifon , where one oi them
dyed, and the other (I thinke) was (pared in hope of his
repentance But what is this to yourpurpole? what had
Racket to doe widi theNonconformifts , who (you know,
if ever you read that Story) abominated him , and would
have nothing to doe withhinij even before he fell to thofe
prankes he plaid in London ? Or wherein was Hack^t to bee
compared with John of LezVcs, who overthrew Magiilracy
2.tMunftiy-^ fttupaKingofhis owne Seft; plundered the
Towne> gave up all to Polygamies, Adulteries, &c. And
laftlvfor the parallel which you fay Whitgift^ 2ind Hoo^r
made between them and the Anabaptifts both in principles,
and praftifeSj(under which reproach you leave them, witli=
out fpeaking a word inrfMsir beh alfe to vindicate them ) I
anfvver onely this, than J am perfwaded your iclfe beleeve,
thditWhitgift and Hook<^T abuled them in thefe Corapari-
fbns: and what your ayme (liould bee in Setting it downe^
I cannot tell, unlefle it bee to inlinuate> that as the good
NoiKonformifts were thus abufed by their Adverfaries 5 io
Sleidm^ BuUingery Calvin^ &c» are not too much to bee cre-
dited in their relations of the Anabaptifts^ to whom they
were profefled adverfaries.

In

mtb the Andhaftifis in Germattj. ^ »

In this Seftyour quarrcll is againft Mr. Vintiy for foA To Sc^, ^
pcftingthe Anabaptiftswillindeavourto undermine Ma-
giftracy, if they could once get ftrength,To which you an*
^^ iwer: !♦ Y oh take not Afr4 Vines for a Prophet. 2^ It
^^ fol^QtPs not^ that becaufe they rppnfe Txdo- Baptifmet out of Mat*
^^ 28. 19. that ihtreforc they will oppofe Magiftracy out of
'^ Roni. 12. 19. 3. T hat yoH will undertake ta make good
" that to prove P£do-iaptifmefrom the equity andreafon ]ofCir-^
^^ cumcifioTT^ doth undermine much of the Afa^ifiracy and
*^ Lawej of this Kingdome. 4. That fame of the enemies of
^'^ Anahaptifit have oppofed Magiftra(^. 5. That fince the
5^ anions of Mnncer and MHn]ler , you finde neither their
^^ writings nor anions oppofing Mtkgtfiracj. 6* 1$tt
^' bring in CafTander 4 Fapiftj fpeak^ng moderately offome
^^ of them. And to mak^ your Reader thinke charitably of them
^^ in this point'y Tou 7, referre them to the Compajfionate Sama^
^^ titan ^ and the London Anabaptifts late confejfion,

I fee how diligent and willing an advocate you are for /w/5r.
your friends^ but few of thefe things will either help you. To i, 2,
or indure the tryall. 'Tis true, Mr. Fines is no Divining ^f- ^»«'' ^«'
Prophet. And 2. it follows not by Logicall argunientati- **^^*^^^-
on, that becaufe they have oppofed the one,therefore they
will oppofe the other» But Sir, without a Spirit of Divi-
nation, or neceffaryconfequence of reafon, when wee fee
clouds gathering, wee may (ufpeft rainy weather; when we tlro^fof tt*
(ee multitudes of our Anabaptifts, especially thofe of the Germane Am-
laft edition,to have drunk in almoll alkhe reit of the dregs baprifts, Urcif
of the (7erm j;7e Anabaptifts; G^^y) in a manner all, ex- '^•"""'^^•^ *«
cept that of oppofing Magiftracy ; may we not feare that ^"S^^^*
even that alfo would bee imbraced if they were fit for it ?
Read over the whole Gangrene of their opinions recorded
by BuUinger, Calvin^ and others; and lately epitomized by
Cloppenbergitis^ and fee whether among our Anabaptifts
in E;zg/j«^, they are not almoft all to be found: Doe not
fomeofours,aswellas they, hold blafphemous Opinions
about the ficfh of Chrift ? Have not multitudes of ours
f wallowed down all Arminianifm, as well as they > Plead
not fbme of ours for the mortality of the foule, as wellas

L theT>

•74 TheAnah/iptifiscfGerminj

m they? have not ibnieofours kid doivnc their Arrnes out of

opinion that even in a jutt caiife warre is unlawfiill^^have
not miiny of ours drunke in the conceits of immediate reve-
lations and Enthyfiarmes as much as they?do€ not many of
ours conceits perfeftion of grace ? doe they not oppofe the
Chriftian Sabbath? doc they not cry downe our Miniftry
as no Miniilry ? our Churches as no Churches ? Verify one
cgge is not more like another then this brood of ntvv opi-
nions (lately hatched hi Englandj and entertained among
them who are called Anabaptiih) is like that Spawne
which fo fuddenly grew up among the Anabaptifts in Ger-
many j and ours plead the lame Arguments which theirs
did'jand if they flow not from the fame Logicall or Theolo-
gical] principJeSjit is yet their unhappy fate to be ltd hy the
:^me (pirit. I confeffe I yet heare not much of their deny-
ing the Magiftrates authoritie, but if thefe men fhould in-
creafe to much ftrength, I will not take upon me to divine^
but I {hall pray that Mr.Kiwc/ prove not too truea Prophet^
efpecially confidering the nature of erroneous and hereti*
Gall (pirits is to grow woHe and worfe, and not at firft
to vent all their poyfbn 5 even the Anabaptifts of Munfler
in the beginning of their Schifme fet forth a confeflion of
faith every way as Orthodox as that which you mention of
the fcven Churches of the AnabaptUls o^Londony in their
Confeflion mentioned in the latter endofthis^Seftion^as I
Mr. "DHty, am credibly informed by a Reverend and Learned Divine,
who hath many y^ ers agoe both feene and read it in Ger-
many.
Ti; 3 . 4. Toy our third and fourth I anfwer^onely this^that I (hall

ivafteuntUl you cleare them, as being not able out of my
fmall judgement and Reading to conjefture either what
proofesyou^can bring for the one^or example forthe other:
you who make your /elfe merry with Mr. Fwes his Logick,
will fhew your ^wne to bee fupereminent when you make
this con fequt nee good, that pleading baptizing of Infants
from Circunicifion of Infants, o\«rthrows much' of the-
Magiliracy and Lawes of England;. \ i - uvv'oh bs'^ ' '-
^.. But your fifth ktm^^ very (trange^ tha« you cannot findc^

that

n$t to be excufedfr$moff$JjHg liAgtftrdcf. 75

that fincci^ww^er and iW«<«ctfr the Anabaptifts in Germa-
ny have cither by writing or a^ion made any oppoiition
againft niagiftracy : as for .their actions, they have of
old paid fo deare for their infiirreftions, that wee have
not lately heard of any new ones i but for their writings
it is mofl apparent that their bookes written by them, even
tochisday, do conftandy defend^ that though Magiftra-
cy bee an Ordinance of God, as to them who are not under
the kingdome and dominion of Chrift^ yet Chrift hath
put an t\\^ to it among his owne people, taken away all iWfa-
giftracy from among them, that no Ghriftian can be a Ma-
gi ft rate with a good confcience, and that if Chriftians doc
live under any fuch, they are to beai-e them but as other
plagues and j udgcments are to be borne.

You oppofe Ca£j*iderj moderate teftimony of fomc of 6.
them to the Duke of C/e^i'e a Papift, againft Mr. Vines his
(peech betbre the Lord Major and City of London\ Caffander
indeed fpake favourably of fome of their perfons,but doth
not cxcufe or plead for their dodrine or principlesj and
Mr. P^res Ipealces againft their doftrine or principles, but
ipeakes nothing againft theperibns of any of them: fo that
Icanfeenocaule of your bringing in this long teftimony
qwto^ Cdjf^nder^ in the favour of ^e»;2/7 and his followers,
but onely to ftiew your good-wii] to the Anabaptifts,and[
your diipleaftre againft Mr. ^i«f/,who differs from your
opinion. One thing morel adde concerning this Mmno
(whom you pleade for by Cajfanders pen) that his whole
dofltrine is as full « )f blafphemy about our Saviours ta-
king flefti of the Virgiu Marj ^ and other Heretical!
and abominable ftufie, as the reft of his fellcwes, though
Ithinke his fpirit was not fo leditious as many of
theirs;

And as to your allegation out of the companionate Sa- ^,

maritan> which indeavours to fpeake all poffiblegood of
fiich as oppofe Presbyteriall government : pleading to ob-
taine an univerfalllibcrtie for all their opinions, andprafti-
ce3, and indeavors to brand as infamous^and caft all manner
of filth ir^ the faces of fuch, as indeavor to promote it, I
leave fuch Lettice to their lips who like it. And for what

L 2 you

•J6 M^'^f-^'pff'/ieiodkngtrettiDeitrm.

knowledge « the n.ofi Onhodox of any AnabS^s con"
fetlion that ever i rea^(a]though there are funcK Lem'
dox opm,onsink)andii,chanoneas I beleeveThoSi
of ournew Anabaptifts U'ill be farre frorownina as "n t

^^* « , V^y°'"^^«venth,youfirft exprelTeyour good afFeftion

WilJingly

willingly adchowlecfgeyour learnlhg^and other abilities.and
arc no whit fbrry your booke is extant, (bccauft they con-
ceive this controverfie may thereby receiYc a fuller (canning}
are extremely icandalizcd at your high and fcornefuJi Q)irit.
" You propound what you conceive is the beft way to
^^ promote Reformation, and your thoughts are, that the Z,

^^ onely way to further Reformat ion is to hegpn with this yom
*' darling, the caftirj^ out this point of Infant^ B apt ifmeya point
*^ vhkhyoH conceive to bee a mother corruption^ which carries in
*' her vponAe mop of thoft ahnfes in dlfcipline andma^werf^and
^^ feme of the errors in do^rine rpbich difite the reformed Chur^
'*^ cheSy rvilboui which all after Cathechizing^ CmfhreJ^fepJirat:-'
^^ on^ChHrch-Covenant^&c, are altogethef* infufficientto fupply
'* the want of it. Scx:ond\y, thai Baptijme therefore hath not that
•**■ influtnce into the comfort and ^^Ugitions of Confciences at it
** had of old. And thirdly, that the Ajfemhli^s fwt beginning
** Vfith this point is one great catife why Gads bkjjing do^ no more
*^ accompany them^ whilfi theywafte much time ahoMthin^j in*
*^ confiderable in comparifoncf this ^and either hafi Hyp 2 jfe over ^
*' or exclude from eXiminettimy this which defervej moft to ^e
** txamined.

Ah Sir, Howdeareandlovclyarc our owne children in
our eyes! did ever any before you conceive fo many and j ^
great evills to follow npon the bapti2ing the children of ^•^***^
beleevers ? that fiich Monftcrs fhould be bred in the wombe
of it, or conceive that the removing of this would be« the
healing of all ? I verily thinkfj (hoald another have fpoke
fuch things of farre greater points, you would have called,
them dilates ^ ChimdraeSy hold^ affertions , and what not?
Whether your Examen of my Sermon, and your twelve
Arguments in your exercitation will prove it to bee
a corruption of Chrifis inflitution 5 whether the reafbns
for Paedo-Bapdfmebe far fetched 5 whether there be adeere
inftitutionof Chrift againft it, (as here you aftirme) wee
(hall have leifare(God willing)tb examine in their due places:
but for the prefent, ftippofe mee to grant your populatum^
that it is an applying of an inftkution to a wrong fubjeffc,
yet I would faine learnc of you, how ail thcfe odious

L3 <;onfe-.

y$ Tjtf4tit-BAfti[mt no dangerous p$9riffjs.

, confeqiiences will bee made good, how diefe abufes in
doctrine, diicipline and manners (which you mention)
would -be taken away if Paedo - Bap tifme were removed; nay
wouldnotthcfeJfe fame things ftillbec found as grounds
or oG€a(ions of the fame differences, while fbme profefle
they would baptize any, whether Turkes or Hcathens5who
oneiy would make a profeflion of their.faith in Jefiis
Chrill, and then admit them to all other Ordinances, and
not have them Excommunicated c fjcris :,(hut oticly aprrvato
conjortio) though their lives (hould prove lcandalous;Cand
I am mifinformed by good friends who know and love you
vei7 wellifyour lelfe incline not this way) others woilld
take the fame courfe before Baptifme j which now they
doe before admitting men to the Sacrament of the Lords
Supper, and would proceed to. exccMnmunication dSacris
as well as privately withdraw froni fiichl as prove icanda'*'
lous and obftinate 5 yea and take themftlves bound to (epa*
rate from mixt communions with them 3, as much as they
doe now, notwithllandingtheiradniiniGn by Bapti.me in
your way. /. nd in this various manner of admitting men
to Baptifme, and dealing with men in other ccn/bres^every
Church or Elderfhip proceeding according to the largenefle
or ilriftnefTe of their p>wne principles, lean fee nothing
butthatthe Gme abufes in difcipline and manners which
are nowfound among Chi iflian people, the fame contro-
veriics aljout inch aslhoi4dbe admitted t© the Lords Sup-?
per, the fame divi(idns-^nd ie pa rations would }>e found in
theChuf^chjwhich nowCalas.!)takcitpo much place ampngft
us. This I (ay^fiippofing your Pdfjulatum were a truth ; But
on the contrary luppofing it not to be,a truth, what a Ve-
format'wn indead of 4 Kef^rmat'vm flpuld wcc bring 1% in
cafting the^hildrcn of Bcjeeyers out of the viiibk Churchy
reputing them no better th^n Xur*^kis?,viA IndianT^ ^nd e/pe^
cially doing ieupon iuch'grounds, as are pleaded by 'you
and others; which even alter the ftate of iht Covtnant of
graced i^sfbr your. lecond, I know i)ot what influence of
^ornfprt or pblig^vtion: iipon ci^^/ciencc; . Bpptifipe. j>ad of
oldjivhichifeirtpi: np,w toh^Q fe«*iH)r?^P'Jfo»§i^H<tlA.'vv;h'>: ^re
i • 1 truelj

traely baptized *, wh o in) oy not onely 'the putting away
the iifch of the ilcfh, but' the anfwer of ^ good xonicience
towards God byrfic refurrc^oh of Jefus Ghrift. ^

And laftly^for what you fpeake of the AfTeniWy, I im-
pute it to your prejudice^ and extreamc doting upon your
owne opinion^ that you thinke this Fei??^,. moll worthy of
their examination^ and to your mifwforhtjtmi (to fpeake
no \vov£ei)fhJtthijJvaj}emHch time about thhi^/ mcfwjiderjbk
in comp<2rifon^ or that they exclude t hit from Examination^ or
fiek^ to fiop it from any Try all ^ or that they haflily pajfe it over .
This is a very bold charge which yon give upon the Aflem-
hly in the face of the world : What evidence have you for
^lis? unlefTc your ^ Compaffienate Samaritan bee. Authen-
tick with you? The'Apoftie commands Timothy not to receive
anacoifation agaittfl anEl)der unhfe* it bee under two or three
witnejfes. But for one man to call thus much filth in the face
of an AflembJy of;Minifters is very high^ and favours little
of thatmodefty or meckhefTcto whichyou did fometimes
pretend. Howf^rrcihebkffingofGod fwho hath hot hi-
therto altogether left us^notwithftanding oar unworthincs}
doth and will accompany the endeavour j of the AJfemhly^it is fit to
leave to himfelfe^who gives increase to P^w//. planting and
ApoUo'i wateringaccording to his good pleafiire. Butas for
their {hutting out the due examination of this Pointy yoii are
wholly miflaken C though they h^ive returned no answer
to your paper.) It i^ true (as I told you in the beginning)
that wee are fbut up by Ordinance of Parliament from an-
fwering any private mens Papers or Bookes without leave
from the Houfcs ; but I dare fpeake it in the name of the
rvhole Afemblj^ that they would bee glad you were admit-
ted to difpute all your grounds among them.

In your next P^r^^r^/'^ which containes a comparifbn Se£i^%,
betweeve the evidences held out in the ISlerv Teftament
for the Religious obfervation of the Lords day^ and this of
Infimt-Baptifme^ you firft make your felfe merry with my
expreifions, that aUwhonjeU the baptizing of Infants ^becaufe
then ii not an (.xpreffe hifiitution or Command in the Nen^-Tefia^
mmty dotandmu^ upon the fame grounds rejel^ the ohfirvatien

'go The cvti^nctf^tht L^rds^Ajy

df the hofds'day, . But I am iio whit alhamed of thofe words.
They dot^zrxA ihey wKJluponi t^acfamt Trhtcipla (if they be
true to their 'Principles^ rejcft die .one as well as the other.
And though I want the skiU which fomt others have to plead for
tb> Lord-day y yet I fuppofe you fhall find I have skill enough
to make this^ good. That there is mrmore expreffefnftitutinn cr
Command in the New^Teftamentfor the Lords day then there ar
fur Infant-Baptifine, And whereas you alledgethat fomc of
th reformed Churches re)eU the Lords day^ and yet entertaine
Irfani-Baptifrne^ and thence inferre thxt theje two mufi mt mceffa--
ri'yfl and and fall ^ bee received and reje^ed together* I an(wer»
Tho^CWc/;^j which doc fb conceive that there is an in*
ftitution for the Baptizing of Infants, but none for the ob-
fcrvation of the Lords day, although herein I humbly
conceive they are miftaken, J doubt not but it doth and
will appeare to impartial! and unprejudiced Readers, that
there is fufScient evidence of an "Inftitution for both of
them, though not in iuch cxpreffe Texts of Scripture in the
New-Tcftament as the Atiabaptifts require, and I (hail now
examine whether you bring any better evidence for the
one, then is to be found for the other.

FM^yonOiyitheymeaneit ofpnfitive worfl/rp^ conffiingin
outward rite s^ and not of wor/hlp which is natHtali er morale.

Ar?far. But this but a blind^msraU and natttraU are not to be
confounded; whatever worfhip is naturall may bee indeed
acknowledged to be morall, but not whatever is morallis
to be efleemed naturall : I know you cannot bee ignorant
of the received diftinftion of .M?r j/e N/imrWt;^ znd Mora*
k pnfitivttm^ and I befcech you, though a Sabbath be gran-
t:d to be Nauirall, yea if I Qiould adde, that one day in the
revolution of ieaven (hould bee fo, yet that this or that fc^
vcnth day in the revolution of a weeke (hould bee obferved,
^11 grant this depends upon an Inftitution, and hath no
more moralitie in it tlien ivhat can bee made out from an
Inftitution, and ronfcquently, that the firft d^y of the
weeke fhould be the Chriitian Sabbath, or that that one
day of feavcn! A^bich God hath (cparatcd to him(elf and had
once cxprefly fixed upon the (eventh or laft day of the week,

fhould

AndSaptifme ef Infants companJ. §^

Hibiild be tranflated from the laft day to the fii^ft day of the
weeke, muft depend wholly upon an Inftitution, and con-
(cqaently they who rejeft that whkh depends upon po6-
tive Inftitution^ unlefle its Inftitution can bee cxprefly
found in the Neiv-Teftament are as much at a loffe for the
Lords day, as for thcbaptizing of Infants.
y>: ^Nay give me leave to adde, that in this pouit in qucflionv
-the advantage lies more ontlSlhandX^ nieane for Infant-
Baptifeie) because there h more neceffitie of cle.7.ring the
Inidtution for the Lords day, then for baptizing of Infints,
becauieinthe one the ordinance itfelfe, and its inftituti-
on is queftioned, but in this 6{ Infant^Baptifme, the que-
ilionishotofthe InlHtution oi the Ordinance ufelfe^ but
onely of tbefubje& to whom the Ordinance is to be applycd.
If the queftionbee betwixt Baptifiiie and the Lords day,
allgrant that we have clearer Inftitution for the Sacrament
of Baptiline, then for the Lords day : Baptiime is clearly in-
ftituted in the New-Teftament to bee the Sacrament of our
admillion into the Covenant of grace, and to fucceed iti
the roome of Circumciiion, ^as your fdfe grant.) Now
the onely queftion is, whether (taking this for granted)
thatbaptifm focceeds in the roome of Circumcicifion, and
to bee applycd unto all perfons by the will of God who are
in Covenant with him, whether the lame perfons may par-
take of this Sacrament, as might partake of the other, un-
lefle thole perfons bee expr^flyfct downe in the New-Te-
mentj I hope in the judgement of all indifierent men, a
queit ion about the perfons to whom an ordinance is to bee
applyedjis a queftion of a farre inferlour nature to that que-
ftion, whether ftich a thing pretended to be an Ordinance
have any Inftitution at all or not. It's one thing to invent
a new Ordinance of worftup, another (and that of inferiour
rank) to miftake in fbme of the perfons to whom an Ordi-
nance is to be applyed. In fome of the ancient times the
Lords Supper was given to Infants, and carried to fick per-
fons when abfent , to teftifie their communion with the
Church ; I take them both for errourSj but yet not for er-
rors ofth? like nature with inventing a new Sacrament; I

M lav

§£ The evidence for the Lirds ddj^

fey againcj there is a gicat difference betweeiiie bringing
in a new Ordinance^ and applying it to thefe orfthefe pei>
fonj, efpecially, when thequeflion is not of the perfons
in generallj who are the fuh]cdc matter, ( as whether
men or Angels^ men or beafts)but whether men of fuch an
age or of(uch a Sex.Sir^^to my bcft imderftanding, thefe t\v6
queftions are not parallcllj ajuft parallel! queftion to diis
of Infant-Baptifme would tPfcich a one as" was oncediipii-
ted betwixt Mr. Bipeld and Mr. Brerewood^viz. Taking it
for granted^ that by a cleare Inftimtionj the Lords day
liicteeds in the roome of the old Sabbath 3 whether yet
thefame perfons are tied to keepe the Lords day, who of
old were tied to keepe the Sabbath, unlcfle thofe parties
were mentioned in the New-Teftament, as whether ler-
vants as lyell as their mailers, the fame holds here.

All thislfpeake not as any whit doubting that there is
as cleare evidence for Baptizing of Infants, as there is for
the religious obJlervation of the Chriftian Sabbath, not-
withftanding the latter feemes to require fuller evidence
then this dotk

Your fecond explication gives you as litde advantage,you
fay thai ApcflolicaU example v^htch bath not a mz&re temporary
reafin^ is tmHgh io proze an Infiitwun from Cody to nUch
ihatpraBife doth relate ^ tjpeciaUy tvhen fuch examples come to
he hacked with ths confiampra&lfe of all Churches in all ages.
jind then joH bring m Panls preaching at Troof^ the CoUiUions
ttpontlefirftdayofthe n>eeh in the fir fl of the Corinthians and
the fixtesntby the mentioning (f the herds daj^y Revel, I*

SiTj I except againll none of all this to bee a part of that
good csddence which wee have for the religious obferva-
tion of the Lords day;, but I dare confidently fpcakc it,
that out of thefe you can never evince more ( laying aU
thins^s together) to prove the Inilitittion of the Lords day,
then I have done f(»r the lawfulnefleofbaptizing of Infants;
and I appeale to all learned Readers, whether the manv
bookes written of late againft the Inflitutlon of the Lorcls
day, give not as fpecious and plaufiblc anfwers to thefe
places alledged by you concerning the Chriftian Sabbath,

and Bapifme of Infants cmfored. 8 j

as yours are againft Infant-baptifmc (although they have
received fiiflicient cleare and folid anfwers) yea and tread
under their feet all arguments taken from thefe examples,
with as much confidence and icorne , as your fclfc doe that
which I and others have named for Paedo-Baptifme. And
as for the (iipplemcnt which you bring out of the conftant
praftife of the Churches for the religious obiervation of
the Lords day in (lead of the old Sabbatk : I eameftly defire
you in your next to produce as many of the ancients to
bearcmtnefle to that truth, as I have done in this point
for P2edo-Baptiime> and I promife you, you fliall receive
my hearty thanks among the reft of your Readers 5 in the
nieane time the Reader (hail judge whether I have not
broi^ht a moity of that for the Baptizing of Infants,
which you have done for the Lords day.

Further^ whether you have notabufed your reader info
confident averring th^ there are no foot fief s in Amiqmty fgt
P^do'Bapitipne^till the trromotts ccmeit offing Godf grace by it^
f^ the fiecejpty ofit^ to five an Infant from perifbing^fome hundreds
of jeers after Chrifis Incarnation^ is eafily to bee leene by \rfiat
I have at large produced in the former part of this trcadfc.

Laftly, your tedious dilcourie of that dangerom principk of
framing additions to Gods tporjbif by Anahgks of our 0rj?se
making ^tthofit v^arrant from Gods H^ordU delire you to apply
it to them who do foj no fiirther make ule of it,then I find
<5ods Word to goe along with me : Whether ^e/liwT/ i«fj«/
are eonfedtrates rwith their parents inthe Covenant ofGrace^comtB
afterwards to be examined, the reft of this Seftion being
carping at a phrafe or exprefSon which your fclfe grant be^
inguken cttmgrano falify may paflewith a candid Reader,
I pafle over as worthy of no fiirther aniwer, onely I adde
this one word, that though it bee not (ate to reafbn bare-
ly from events of things, yet it well becomes us thankfiil-
ly totake notice of Gods blelling upon his owne Ordi-
nance, and the more earneftly to contend for that which
God k plea(ed fb mercifully to accompany with his
grace.

In your ninth Seftion you concurre with mee in condemn To SeS*^*

M 2 nini

j^ AnU'fdd0'bafU[lsleAvt Infants ^f Bdeevers

ningit as amckldptaUilt to/eparatefrom minift'ry and cormnu-
mon in Ord'man€es^ hy reafon cf thii difference in opinion^ and
that the wakingof Seas upon thefe ground j ps contrary unto Cbri"
jiian Charitie: and I as willingly eoncurre with you in
what you fay in the latter part of this Seftion, that gpdfy
Minifiarj andmber Chriflians fh^^uld not by harfh ujage of their
brethren in fitrringup hatred in MagiflrateS and peopk againfi
ihem^ cafiprHmhliKghkck^intheirrpay^ thereby to alienate dif-
ftnting brethren from them: but for what you fay in the middle
of this ScdLioiiyihat this is not the evill of Anti'p£d.'bapiifmy
I anfwer, I conceive it flowes from the principles which
moil of the Ahti-psedo-baptifls do conceive (though pof-
fiblyall (and your felfc for one haVe not wholly Embra-
ced them) for ifyou pleafe to take and to compare thele
three principles of theirs together, Firft, members are ad-
ded to the Church by Baptifmejand not otherwife. Second-
ly^ that fuch as arc not baptized according toGhrifts In-
mtutiouj their Baptifine is a nuUitic. Thirdly^ that be-
cause the Baptifiiie of Infants is not clearely heldf out in the
New Teftamcntj it is therefore not warranted by Chrifts
Inftitution, but contrary to it^ and theii tellmee what fol-
lowes lefle then this^ that none fo baptized arc Cfe&rclfi;
members, Scconiequently can pcrforme no afts of Church-
member Sj and that therefore our Churches are no true
Churches, our Miniftry can bee no taic Miniftry, aiid
therefore a neceilitie ofieparation from us.Whatyou add in
the end of this SefUon^that apaffage in one of my Ser-
mons about /k hedgewhich Gad hmbfet about thi ficonaCom^'
mattdement hath bun oke caufe of your ftartling at this point'
ofPddo-Baptifme,! anftvefjOnely thiSjhadyou not bin ftartled
before^ there is nothing in that (peech could have moved
youj and when once you have manifefred that Baptizing of
iTifants doth breakedowne the hedge which God hath mide
about the fecond Commandcment^ I (hall bee frartled wkh
}^u> and not till then^
HoSfB lo In your tenth and laft Seftion, wherein you undertake
' to anfwer that palfage in my Sermon^ that the opinion:;
of the Anabaptiits puts all the Infants of belecvers into

the

/> the fame CBrnUtm with Pagans. g ^

the leJfefame condition ivithTurkes and Iiifidells, you an*
fwer feveraU thini^s : wherein I plainely perceive you can-
notdeny what I affirme, and yet you arc loath to grant it ;
you fay, firllj Cyprian withhii 66, Bijhopj doth the fame^which
1 have formerly (hewed will not follow out of the words of
ofthatEpiftle : fecondly, you fay, Mr» lUthband pleading
that fuch Children whofe Anctjhrt in any generation rvere faiih-
full ff>ay UvpfuUybee accmnted n^ithin Gods Covenartt-^grarns the
jumealfo. But this no waycs folio wes widiout extreame
wracking thofe words in any Generation, I fuppofe your
iclfedoth notthinke thofe words, Exod, 20.5. were inten-
ded to intimate that ail die children in the world, who came
froni ^dam or Nj^^ were included in the Covenant of grace^,.
nor doe I conceive youbeleeved Mr. Kathhand to thinke ib»
Foryourowne opinion you declare it thus; i. Toukn&w
no vparrant to thinki ekliion to reach kleevcrj children more then
imbekevers children. 2. Touknovp no more fromifi for itmn then
fir tlje childrm of ttn^ekeveri, 3 . All the likelihood there, is^ that
they belong te Gods ele&ionraihtr then lurkes and Infidels^ lebcy
becjHJe they havi their parents and the Churches prayers^ fome
gmtrall and conditionaU fromifes^ and enjoy tl?e. b^efit of good
infi-ruUion and exampk^ which puts thtmtntd a nearer pgffibility
10 bee hditvers and faved^ and experience fherves God fa-
^tfentiy continues hit Church i?j their pof^trity* Btfi this you dare
not grmnd upon any promife made unto bekevers as fnchy for
fiart yon &oHld incurre ^lafphemy by challenging a promifi
which God doth net keepeiin that many of thz pojieritie afgodh
pannttprovi very ji^ick^ed,

-'■toaUwhichlanfwer, firft, in general!, that to rayun-
dcrftanding you here clearely yeeld the Infants ofbclee-
vers to bee in the fame condition in reference to the Cove-
Tiant of gracc,^ which the Infants ofTurkes and Indians
are in, no morepromiiefor the one then for the other:
which (b oft as you confider, mee thinkes your fatherly
bowels to your owne children fhould t>ce moved within
you. Secondly, I answer, firft, to that of ekftion, your oTvne
fpeeththattxperiince fiemvg that God frequently (omimtes hid
Church among bikevirspofteritito fhould bcpnc argument to

M 3 . make

8g Arstip^d^- bAftifis UHfoe Irffdnts of BcUe virs

, make you thinke Gods elcftion lies mor« among them then
among others, though wee can bee ccrtainc of no one b{
' them ill particular. Secondly^ what promifea are made to
beleevers children more then to Turkes, and whether Ahtd"
6jw/promi(e reach thenijihall God willing bee fcand in its
proper place- Thirdlyjasto that which you fay, tliat the
children of beleevers are in a more hopeliill Way, bccaufe
of their parents prayers, inftruftionsj examples^ Sec. and
fome general! and conditioniall promiies which puts them
in a more pofTibiliticj I anfocr, this i^ nothing to the
children which die in their Infancy, nor Secondly, any
more then children of Pagans enjoy", whofe lot may
fall to be educated by Chriflians, but no more promi/e by
your doftrine for the one then the other. Thirdly, whereas
you aftirme thtt GtmraU^ Ifidefimte^ and CortStionall promjfei
doe prove tbat.tbire is a more cmfortabk lik^lihjcd that the cbil-
dnn of bdeevert a.e eh^ed bjGod ra:her then the cb'ddrm.of
7'urkis, I reply^ i. You doe not expreffe what thofe pro-
mlft s are. 2. 1 wonder that you fhould inferre elcdion from
cx)nditionall promifo. Did God ever (ay that if you will
pcrforme thefe and thefe conditions, tiien I wiU regene-
rate you, give you a new heart, and put my fpirit within
you? 3. Ifthepi'omife of regeneration bee not conditio-
nall then youmuft fay thatthere is ibmc comfortable likeh-
hoodthatfuch Infants may bee elcfted though they arc not
regenerated, for if there be any thing lefle then regenerati-
on promifed, fure there can be n o comfortable likelihood
of theekftion of a child gathered from aproraiic of any
thing which leaves a chiM in an unregcnerate ellate. ftutl
much admire that fpeech of yours, where you feare you
(hould incur blafphemy by challenging a promiie which
God doth not keepe, bccaufc many of the children of be-
leevers prove wicked j I befecchyou tell me, was it not fo
among Abrahams pofteritie? and yet you grant Abraham
had a peailiar promifc which wee have uotj might not
they without blafphemy plead that promile^ notwith-
ftanding that promife, / tviU be the God of thee mui thy fiedy
was not made good to every one of them? for it is moll

clearc

in the fame cdndition mth Pagans. Zy

cleare by the Apoftles difcourfein the ninth and eleventh
Chapters to the Ramar7i,tlut God was not the God ofthou-
fands of Abrahamj fecd^ either in relpeft of (aving grace,
or outward priviledges, for he caft off the Jewes from b>
ing his people, and ftificrcd them not to enjoy fo much as
outward priv jjedges , but made choice of the GcntiJes in
their Ileadjand yet I iiope you will not fay that God broke
his Covenant with thole that had the feale of the Cove-
nant in their flefti, and yet were reje6:ed not onely from fa-
ying grace, but from outward priviledges.

Next let us lee how you avoid being goared by the three
Kornes of my Syllogifme. I faid, all being left in the fame
condition, l^AUmufikfaved. Or 2. allmufi bee damned.
Or g . Godfavejfome of the Infants of the Turli^s , and fume of
the Infams oj beleev&s pro ^enephcito. After fomc difcourle
of the two firfl of thefe,youdeny the conlequence : It fol-
hffis not (fay you) God mjjffavefsme^ and thofe fome may bee
tb( Infants of bekevers^ and none of the Infants of Turkl and
Indians, I^s true, a man that will may venture to fay fo;
and if another will, he may venture to lay, Ihat thojefoms^
are the Infant J of Pagans ^ and net of Chriftians : and heethac
fhould fay fo, hath as good warrant for this, as you have
for the other, according to your principle. But what's this to
the qucftion before us ? I lai d, This opinion hx^^s them all
in the like conditionjO/fe hwing no more reference to apromife
then anorher. Now if you will avoid being goared by any of
thele three horne6,you fliould have (hewe^ that according
to your opinion,thereis Comepromife for fome of the Infants
of beleevers , though there be none for the Infants of Pa-
gans. But i n frcad of Ibewing h ow your doftrine an d opi-
nion leaves them : you tell me what God may poflibly doc
in his fecret Counlell, which is altogether unknowne to us.
But! perceive y our felfe lii^efted this anfwer would not
endure the tryall : and therefore you quarrell at that ex -
prcflion of mmt^Tbat ifanj cf the Irtfants^ offuch as live and
die fagans he faved by Chrifi '^ thenfalvationiy Chriftiscar-.
rjed oHt df the Cburcb:^ whereof Cod hath made no pomife. A--
gaiixft this you except 5 1 . Thatfahmion is not carrytd oHt of

the.

5g Anti-p^de-lp^ptijls leave Infants ofBelti'vers

tJje invifihle ChurcJy^ though fame InfanU offagani fhouU hez
Javed by Cbrift, 1 anfwcr, it's trues and I addcj That if a ^
ny man (hall fay, the V evils pould k faved by Chrift ; even
that Opinion would not carry falvation out of the invili-
ble Church. But Sir, wc are enquiring after the falvation
cf them to whom a proniife of iaivation is Hikde* Now
when you can prove that God hath mad€ a promift, that
he will gather a number, or hath a. number "Whofe names
are written in the Lambs book^-alth ough their Parents ne*
ver knew Jefus Chriftj nor themfelves ever live, to bee in-
ftru6:ed ^ you may then perfivadeyoar Pveader to beleeve^
thateven fome of thelnfantsof Pagansdying ijiithcir In-
far cy belong to the invitibic Church j ar.a till: then, you
mull give him leave to beleeve that this anfwer is brought
in as a (bift, onely to lei-ve your prefent need.

Secondly^ you unCwer^Xkjtmenmjj be9 J^ed out of the
commuTJimof tbevifible Church- and you in fiance Abraham
called QHt oj Chaldeaj Job;« the L^nd^f Vz ; Rahab in Je-
richo; andyoit Jay ^ Hce that called tbefe^ may javc- jifm a*
mongfi Tnrkej and Indianj mt of the vifihk Cburcb. I an-
fwer, I hope in your next^ you will a little better explaine
your meaning: The Reader will certainly take this to bee
your meaning : that as Akraham, Job ^ and Rabab^ wereia-
ved out of the communion of tha vifible Church in their
dayes: fo fome among the Tmkes and Indians may bee fa-
ved out of the communion of the viiible Church in our
dayes. But furely this is not your meaning, you doe not
beleeve, that Abraham^ Job^zxid Rahab were out of the com-
munion of the vifible Church, though polfibly the manner
of their calling might bee extraordinary ^ as afterwards
St. Pauls was. Nor doe you beleeve that the Eunucli when
he was returned into Ethiopia was out of the Communion
of the viiible Church; though his habitation (at leaf! for
af while) was not among Chriftians but Infidels* lam
perfwaded that you thinke all vifible beleevers to bee within
the Communion of the vifible Church , though poflibly
the^^'may be hindered from being a&iali Members of any
particular Church . I will not Co much as imagine that you

men-

in the fame eondimn with Pdgans* 89

mentioned thefe three examples, as a Blinde to deceive youp
uncautelous Reader : and therfore I only dSve you in your
next, to let us know your meaning plainely: and difcover
tousthismyllery^ how men may bee called to fellowfbip
with Jefus Chrift, and yet have no communion with the
vifible Church of Chrilt.

The reft of this Sedion^ wherein you enquire what thofe
promiiesare which are are made to the feed of beleevers, I
(hall (God willing) give you an account of them in the
next part of the Sermon, whither now you call mej onely
I cannot but take notice of your confident brag in the
dole of this Se^on, how manfully ym bavi entred mj (rttf-
tvorl^s^ and thereby inemrage ydur fclje to Jcale tny walls : You
indeed entred, and fetup your flag, but! hope it appeared
to the indiiferent Reader that you are in no great proba-
bilitie of getting any great Ipoile, unlefle my walls prove
weaker then the outwoi:ke,\diich as yet are farrc from being
taken by you.

PART III.

NOw wee come to that wherein I rightly placed ;hc Defence of the
ftrength of my cmCt^tht evidence rphicb the Scripture gives third parr of
for Infam-'Baptifmei^hich. before I proceed in theexaminati- Sermon.
on of, I briefly propound to the Readers confideration, ^^^^l ^°
that you have this advantage to make your worke have Of the'con-
a Specious probabilitie, in that the queftion is concerning nexion be-
Infants, concerning whom there is much filence in the fweenerhc
Scripture, andfliould any man argue againft the juftifica* Covenant, and
tion of Infants, by the Theologicall doftrine that is to bee ^ ^*
found clearein the Scripture^ how fpecious a plea might he
make, elpecially if his deputation fliould bee carried as
yours is altogether in the way of making exceptions againft
ar^ments, but not poGtively affirming any thing? But
notwithftanding, by the heipe of God, I hope clearely to
vindicate my arguments from your exceptions.

My firft Argument was, tbe Infants (f beUeving parent j are
fisderati^hereforethey mnfi btfignatij^ arc wUhinth Covenant

N (f

^ InfanuBapifm€fr9vedfr§m Scripture;

gf Grsa^ thenfon an toparial^e of the Stale oftheCevenant, ■

This Argument^ becau(e I knew the tearmes of the pro-
pofitions and the reaibns of the confequents would not be
deare at the firft propounding, I therefore made no further
The confe- proftcution of untill firft I had cleared five conclufions
quenccotthe from whlch it receives not oncly its light, but ftrength,
argument made ^nd front which it ought not to bee ieparatcd, becaufein
good, ^^gj^ J jj^^l^ prove a Covenant and figne initial!, this, firft

you affault fingly, and denying both the propofition/ you try
your ftrength in this Seftion againft the confequence^ and
affirme that th^ who diWj the cmfiquence doe it jftfify^ becauje
(fay you J if they rpho aref£derati muji he fignati^ it mttfi bee
jo either byreafonof fome necejfary connexion bettveene the tearmes^
qjr by reafbu of Gods will declared concerning the Covenant ofGracti
hut for neither ofthefesaiifes j firfi^tbire is no neceffary cenjequeme
that God gives a promt fe^ ergo he mufi give a feale^ or a fpeciall
figne ^ Jofi?Hah had none for his prnmije of bringing Jfiael
into Canaan'^Thinehas none for hk^ for the Prlefihood to continue
in his family ; norfeccndly^by any declaration of Godi v^iti^Adam^
andaUiberefl to Abraham hj^?mjey yea^ and in Abrahams time
Mdchifedecki Lot^ J obi, and fur Abrahams family there vasno
filch HnivtrfaU order or declaration of Gods will if or children under
tight dayesoldy and all the females had no fuch command^ and
therefore to h^vefealed them^ wou'd have heme wiU'Worfljip^ and
foyou conclndihtre and in many »ther places of your booke^ that it is
not heiffg foederati in Covenant i^hlch gives title to the feak.hut
ondy the declaration of Gods will to have hfo^

TowWch lanfwer cleareiy, and firft in generaU. That
Th^^^c fe- concerningthc truth of diis<:^«/^«e//ce, the difference be-
qucnte proved twcenc y ou and me is not fo much as you would make the
byMr.Tom^V wofld bfclecve, wee diifcr iride^d in the interpretation o{ the
owne princi - -wordf^dtratiy about what is meant by being in Covenant,
i?^' 1 affertj that n^any are to b^e reputed to belong to the Co-

venant of grace, and in fome feijfe to bee Covenanters
thoughtbty 'be not partakers inwardly of the favijig graces
of the Covenant, for the Covenant of grace contaijfcs not
onely faving grace, but the ada}ia]fi ration of it ahb in out-
ward Ordinancss, and Church privljedges, and that ac-
cording to Gods owne word many are; Covenanters with

him

him, orinibmefenic under die Covenant of grace, who
are partakers oncly of the outward adminiftrations and
Church priviledgcsjj'<7» allow none to be under the Cove-
nant of grace in any true Gofpel fenle, but onely foch as
are inwardly beleevers, juftified, fenftified, and partakers
of the (avxng graces of the Covenants Whether of us are
in die right, (hall (God willing) be tryed out in thisdiP
pute; but as to the trudi of the confequence, Th^t ail wba
are in tbt Covenant of^raciy aught therefore to be partakes of tin
fiale : you acknowledge more then once, or twice, or ten
timesj for though you every where difpute that God hath
made no declaration of his will concerning baptizing of
Infzms^yetrotfmJfisverlflf^you profefle that if you knew
an Infant to bee regenerates you would baptize it. And
when I faid. Such ^ baiJe the inward grace^ ought not to hec
dtnjedtheoHtwardfgnt : Youanfwer, There is none of the
yintTpitdohjptifif hut Ml grant th at prepofition to bee trucy pag.
142. And theprefentfiatt of apzrfon Uihat rphlch gives ri^
to b^ptiftneyipsLg.i'^^' Us granttdthat (iuch Infants) fuch
as arcmwsLvdly fan&ifiedare difciplef^ and may not he debarred
frombaptifme* mark. Infants difczples^ and is not this in
plain Englifh^Tto fucb as are Covenanter jy ought not to be de-
ny ed the initiallfeale sfthe covenant'^ Now then, if I can prove
that not onely (iich as are inwardly regenerate^ but others
alfo, whether Infants or grown men are to bee reputed to
belong to the Covenant, and that anexternall vifiWe right
(in facie vifbilis Eccleji^'^ms.y be made out for any perfbn or
perfbns, to be by us owned Sc received as Covenanters with
God, you your ielfe grant that the feale may be applyed to
themj and whether this bee fo, or not, {b^l C^od willing)
-afterwards fully appeare. . o • i o

Secondly^ I anfwermore particularly^ i. I grant with
you that there is no neceflary dcpendance beuveen a pro-
mife and a feale^ the addition of a (eale to a promife is of
free grace, as well as thepromifc it felfi & if God had never
given any Sacrament or (eal of his Covenant, w^fhouM
have had no caufe to complaine of him, he well deferves
to be believed upon his bare word. Nor 2 . did I ever think
that by Gods revealed will this Propofition was tree m all

N 2

^2 hfant'Bdptifme proved from Scriftttre.

^|e/ of the Church; All Covenanters mufi bee fiakdf Icarry-
- cd it no higher theri -4i»r^^^wa/ time, when God firft added
this iiew mercy to his Chiuxhjvouchiafing afealto the Co-
venant: And 3. from Ahrahams time and fo forward, I
fay it wa Gods mU^ that fiich as are in Covenant (hould bee
fealed with the initiall ftale of the Covenant 5 fuppofing
them onely capable of thefeale, and no ^eciall barre put
in againftthemby God himlelfe^ which is apparent in the
very firft inftitution of an initiall feale, Ge». 17.73 p,
1O3I4. Where die very ground why God would have
them fealed^ is becaufc of the Covenant^ I will eflablijh my
CvVtnant hetwan me and thee and thy feed after thee in their
generations for an everUfiing Covenant to be a God to thee and
thy feed after thee: thou fhalt keepe tny Covenant then-
fore • and this it my Covenant n?hich yee fhall k^ep 5 every
man cbilde among you fhall kee ci-fcumcifed 'j and after-
ward in the 14. the feak is 5 by a Metonymia called the
Covenant^ for that it's apparent not onely that God com-
manded them who were in Covenant to be circumcifcd^ but
that they fhoiild therefore be circnmci(cd becaufe of the Go"
venantj or in token of the Covenant bctw^eene God and
them 5 and he that rejefted or negleftcd the feale, is faid not
onely to brcakeGods commandement^ bat his covenant : fo
til at becaufe the initial] Scale was added to the Covenant,
and fuch as received it, received it as an evidence of the Co-
venant, or bec^ufe they were in Covenant : I therfore con*
cluded,that by Gods own will,fuch as enter into Covenant
ought to receive the feal, fuppofing ilill that they were
capable of it* So that to lay Circumcifion upon Gods
command, and the Covenant of grace too,are well confift-
enttogether;forthe command is the caufc of the cxificnGC
of the duty? but the Covenant of grace is the motive to it*
Anfw, 10 J^U 4* Wkreasyou dMtdgtcmcermng Melchifdeck,, toty Jol^-^
fbifedtik^i Jib, n>e find m ffich thixigthat ibey either received this feak ofcir^
and Let. ciimcifion^ €r nrertiyedto it, J reply, it's very hard for yoii

to prove that Mekhifedech, was then alive? and had he been
aiive^fre was of an higher Order .and above that Paedagogic
Or in what age of the world Job lived , though hee bee
thought to be of thepofterity of Efau^ and fo might have

Tnfant'taptijtne f roved from Scrifture. j^3

a right to it (even in your fen^e) as defending lineally
from Abraham ^ however this is a meere negative Argu-
nient in matter of hdi^ whichyourfclf knowtobee of
no validity; Negative arguments from Scripture are good
in matters of faith. I am not bound to bcleevethis or that,
unlcfTe it be found in the Scriptures; but they are not good
in matter of faft; this or thatfa^t is not recorded in the
Scriptures therefore I am bound to beleeve it was not done,
is no good consequence; Anon fcrtpto ad nm faliummn
2;j/e/c^;2/e^«f«/iANo Scripture! faith they were circumci/ed,
(though very good Authors thinke that Lot and loh were
circumcHed,) npr doth any Scripture fay they were not
circumciied.

As to that you fay of Infants mder eight dajes old^ and ^/ And ro luCinrs
all the females in Abrahams family. lanfwer to that of 7«- under eight
fants 3 there was a pecnliar exemption of them by ^jd himfelf^ <ia>es old.
whether for any typical! reafon, or in regard they were
not fit in nature to undergoe fo (harp a paine as was to bee
induredin Circumdfion, before .the ieventh and criticall
day was paft, or whether for any other cauie , I di.'pute
not; it is fufficicnt, God forbad them to have the feale till
they were eight dayes old. For the n^omen , they were'not Women not
fubji^um capax eircumcifionp!^ ther£ was in them a naturall ^P^^^^ o^ Cir-
impediment againft itjtherfcre could net be injoyned them: *^"*^^' *°"*
and fuppofe iamt men among them^ or fome who turned
profelytes to them had not had a praptttium (as fbme ibrt of
Eunuchs) this Ordinance had not reached them 5 whether
the wifdome of God purpofely chofe a figne that Women
might not be capable of receiving it,for feme typicall ufe, as
fome conjefture:! cannot teli^it is fuffident that they were
not capable of it^Sc were cxempced from it by (Sod^himfelfe:
lb that ifyou pleafeto fiatethegenerall Propcfition, as
you needs muft. That all Tvhofince Abrahams time arefctdera,
ti^ «r tevenaniers with God^mufi hy Gods own appointment receive
tbejeale of admijfion into covenant^unlejfeihey he either nncapa-
hk of it^or are exempted Bj a particular difierjation: This pro*
pofition will indure all the {hock of your arguments, and
remain unmovablc.

N3, Next.'.

y^ Infant'Baftif?ne fr0vedfr$m Serif ture.

Women cir- Next yoii reply to my anfwer concerning f^omen among
cumcifedinrhc^l^g jg^yg^ Jfaidtbf^ vperc drcumtifed in thtmaki\ this you
men ,vindica • ^^^ ^^^^ ^^j^.^ fcorae, affirming it to be ^n eafie anfmr , ^e-
eanfi iCj eafie to bee anjvpertd. Indeed Sir^ you anfwer it as
caiily as ht: who undertooke to aniwer BeUarmim in one
wordj and faid^ Bellarmme thou Ijefi : fo you, it is an irfetffi-
cient anfker to tak^ away the axcefticn agair/fi the propofitiony
and thatyoH might have a little matter to worke upon, you
goe to another part cf my Sermon^ and thence you fetch
thc^NOvdvirtualfyy with which you make your lelfe meny
putting my propofition into feveraUpapes and formes 5 and
in pne form (you fay) it concludes not the. thmg inquefiknh in
another, it haih 4 termes-^ in another^j^^^e msjor is falfi.\^hec-'
as my plaine meaning was, and is , that the women being
uncapable of it in thcic own perfbn, becaufe of their fix,
wherein was a naturall impediments as to this Sacrament,
God impofed it onely upon the Males, and yet the women-
were not efteemed as uncircumci^d, being (as Divines ufe
toeXprefTe in this point) viris annexe & in iis cenferentur
^ui fimili arum Capita debebanteffe- and whether this will
not be jnftified:, we fhall prefcndy inquire. But firil give
meleavetoobferveby the way how you pinch me with a
point oflatp^Thatno man canine frid virtually tobavethat hy
his Prcxk or AttHrney^n^hich he might mt aCtuallj naive hlmfelf
in his on^n perfon. I queftion whether this be goodlaw ^ but
I am confident it is badVi'vimty , fure we fin'd virtually in
Adam^ yet We could not aftualiy, though that fin of Mam
be onrs by imputation* The fun is virtuaDy hot, yet Philo-
Ibphers fay its not a(ftually. And the Jews of old offered
to God fuch things by the hands of the Priefts who were
their Proxies in that work which they might not offer in
their own perfons : yea, and received fuch things by the
hand of the high Prieft(who bare their names in themoft
holy place) which they might not receive in their owne
pcrlbns immediately : and the Saints now in this world
do virtually,and quoad effeciumjur is , receive fbme iiich pri-
i^iledges in Chrift their Advocate, who in their right^is at
Godi right hand, which here they ai'e not capable of recci*'

ving

ving immediately in their own perfbns. I alio obiter dtCvt
you to remembpr this exprelHon ofyours, Ihat itbadheene
a pmje for a child to have been ctrcumcifed after the eighth day
w(K pafi. And try how you will reconcile this with an opi-
nion of yours delivered ellcwherej viz. That circumcifion
might bee adminiftred oftmr then once j furely thoie other
times muft be after the 6rft eighth day.

The other fault you note in my argument;, is:> Thit I
conclude of a figne of the Covenant indejinitel)^ and not of Bap"
tifme onefy'y whereas the Lords Supper is alfo a figne ef the
Covenant'^ whichjetyouthinke I mllfaj isnot to Let delivered
to tbem^ bscauje not appointed for them: I anfu-erj I clearely
in my Sermon (hewed this Prcpofition onely to be meant of
the i«i^w/i ^^^5 and notoftheo^feerjandl am confident your
fel^whodurit baptize an Infant known to you to be regene-
rate, durft not yet give the other Sacrament to if, becaule
more is required to make one capable of that Sacrament,
then is required to make them capable of Baptifhie : a re-
generate infant you thinkeis capable of this : but befides
regeneration,! am iiireyou will grant. That an examinati-
enof amansfelje^ and an ability todifcerne the Lords hody^ is
required to make one capable of that.

Now let us fee how you avoid my proofes. That
the Women were circumcifed in the mm. My firft Was^That/^e
whole boufe of Ifrael are in the Scripture faid tohg circumciftd.
You anfwer^ that hytben>l ok bouje of Ifrael mufi net he meant
allf hut the ma'^or party or the moft confiderahlepart* But Sir, CircumciTed
doc you imagine that any of your judicious Readers can nor pur for tiie
beiatisticd with thir- anfwer, when (you know well enough) J^^^^*" ^^ "^'
that the Gircumoiji^n is pu5 for the Church andfeopk of Godwin ^^ ^^"'
oppofition to the uncircHmcifed-xhdX. is,al the reft of thewor Id
who are not the people of GodAVhen P«er was to go to the
Circumcifion^ P.^ul to tb e Gentiles to preach die Go^h, does
not circumcifion include the Women Jews, as much as the men,
in oppofition to the ^«?/^i/^j;as well as the word Gmtiles in- Cai. 2. ^. ,
eludes the Women Gentiles as well as the men , to -whom
Paul w^s fent? GjL 2,8.9. Surely it mutt needs be gran-
ted, that not onely the major,or nobler part, but thfi whole

Nation

5i6 " l;$faHt'B4ptifme proved fr$m Scripture.

Nation of the JeweSjboth men and women are there meant
byCiraimcifion, which could not have been, if in Tome
fenie they were not to bee ac-counted Circumciied^

Secondly^ I argued thus , No HncircHmcifed perfon might

^ eate the Pajjeover : Ergo, Their ipomen might not have eaten i^ , x

if in fome Jenje they had not been circumcifid. Your an^er is,

Thia vi to bee limited pro fubjeftamateria, none that ought to

be circumcifed might eate the PaffeoVery unlejfe they werf circum^

!Kep!j, cifed. But this anfwer is altogether iniiifficient. For ,

I. Where is thisdiftin£lion of yours found> or founded in

the Word of God ? other diftindions about eating the

PaflTeover, are clearely found, the c/^j»eniight eate it, the

unilean might not eat itjthe circumcifid might ^the umircHm-'

eifed might not: but of your limitation there is altumfilen-

tium.

No warrant for *• I demand fiirther, where is there any commander

women ro eate inftitution for women to eate the ^PafleOver, (more then

rlu P^iTeovcr, for Women now to eate the Lords Supper, ) unlefle it bee

imicife (hey founded upon Circumcifion? yet in praftice we know they

wtrero bee e- ... • j t t • • t ^ r

fteemcd cir- "^^ ^^^'^ ^^ 5 ^^^ " ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^ circumciied pcrfons ,

cnmcik'd. tell me by what right they did it. If you fay they were

included in the houlhold, E^<?^. i2. 5,4. Every hottfi old n>a9

to eate the Pafcball Lambe^ and there was no exception of jr#-

men, I reply, far ft , grant but the fame con(equence, that

when wee read fb frequently in the newTeftament, that

whole houfiiolds were baptized ^%cm exception of children^that

therefore all the children in thofe houfholds were baptized,

and this controverfie is quickly ended But I adde further,

it is not faid that the whole houfhold (hall eate it , for all

iincircumcifed perlbns were forbidden to eat it, & n one but

circumcifed perfons had any warrant to cat it. Yea further,

fuppofe fome words in the inftitution Ihould reach the /<?»-

ifb Tfomeny yet how doth it reach the vpomsn Gentiles , who

fliould prove Proiclytes to them? for Exod. 1 2.48, 49,there

is order taken for the ma! g fir anger ^ Let all hit males be circum-

clfed^andthen let him com^neare and kee^ //jbut there is not any

word that takes order for the grangers females J hope by this

time it appears that your exceptions again ft thecoiiiequence

of

of my Argument have.np wei$ht, .tb^jare foderatij tkr^re
tifej ani9 be {igmlU ■•=*;;- IT ^r--::

Next come wc to examine the truth of the Antecedent RepI/ to
■which I manifcfted inthofe five Conclufions opened in my Sea. x.
Sermon: The firft whereof is thif^ That the Covenant of
<Jrace^for fithjiance, hathaltvajeJ heen one and thefame^ both to The Covenant
the Jetvet and Gentiles, Jhisfirfl CQftAufion jou grant ; and «f grace always
therefore there were no need to have flayed the Reader any ^^^^^^ ^"®
further about it, were it not that fome of your exceptions
doe almoft recall your grant : If it bee in fubttance the
fame, though youfhould feckon up a thoufand accidental!
and locall differences, it were nothing to the purpofe : but
the firfl doth almofl recall it 5 wherein you charge me t9
carry the narration of the Covenant made rvith Abraham, G&x.
Jj, Of ifitdidpnelyamtainetheCovenant of Grace in Chrijf^
Tvhereas it U apparent ( fay iyou) wf of the Text^ that the Co-*
venam wm a mixt Covenant ^ confifiing of tempor all benefit s^ the
multiplying j/ Abrahams feed, pQ^f^jf^on of Canaan, the birth
^/Ifaac, befides the fpiriiMallhUffingjf To which I reply, I
meant /(7 inde^, :and fp I plainly exprefTed my fclfcj that all
,the difference betwixt the Covenapt then made with Ah<t^
ham^dciyi the Covenant made With us, lies onely in the man-
ncr of the adminiflration ofthe Coven ant, and not in the Hrithi4^rX*'»'^
Covenant it fclfe. The Covenant it fclfin the A/'/^^we of '„© more mixc
it holds out the fame mercies, both fpinituaU and temporally for fubftance
to them, , and to as : ; Godlinefle. having all the ' promifes ^^^" rhcCovc -
both of this Iifc,and that which istp come V and that thcy^ . "*"*^*f^ ^*
and we^have our right tp all thefe proinife? upon! the felfe
fame conditiqnjearthly things indeed Were to them promi-
fed more diftinftly andfoUy^ heavienly -things more gene-
rally and fr^nngly then they are now to us ; and on^ the
contrary, Ipirituall things are more fully andclearely ^ro-.
mifcd to us thai to them 5 and earthly promifes more ge-
nerally and fpar^ngly : And that thefe temporall benefits
which you mention, viz» multipljdng of Abrahams ictd^
the birth oilfaac^ and pofleflion of Canaan were all of
them «fo«l«i/Jrj//Var of the Covenant of graces they were

jg Infdpt-Bdftijme framed fr$m Smfture.

fgHref^ pgncs^ and tjps of (pirituall things to be enjoyed
both by rficm and us. Thcfe things I not onely affertaii, but
f roved in mj/ Sermon, If you think otherwise of thefc earth-
ly bleflingSjI defirc you to explain your meaning in your
ncxt.lf yon mean no more then this that all thcfe temporall
blcflings were promifed and given as flowing from the
promife of Chrift, and were fubfcrvicnt to it, or were but
types and ftadowea of it^ you meane no more then what
wee all grant, who yet deny any more mixture in the Cove-
nant made with Abraham for* the fobftance of it then there
is in that made with us : and that the difference lies onely
in the manner of adminiftration. But I confelle I fulped
you have a forther meaning, iiot onely becaufe you here
mention the temporall blellings before the (pirituall, and
call the land oi Canaan the Covenant made with Abraham^
but cipecially that expreffion which you owne from Camt"
Ton^ that Circumctfion did primarily Je ale the temporall promt fe^
andpgnifitd janUtfication but feeondarily ; what your mea-
ning is in this expreffion, I cannot tell^it hath an untoward
lookc^asifthemeaning were, that God did primarily and
chiefely, in a Covenant of Grace founded in Chrift( where-
in himiyfe promifes to bee their portion) Intend in the
fealeofit to ratifie temporall bleffings which onely con-
ctsne&viiam animatem-, now that ihe Scale (I fay) of this
Circumcifion Covenant fhould primarily, and chiefly give evidence to
fcaledthc fpi- ftch a portion which a people may enjoy, with whom Ged
noiaii part of ^gygj. j^^de a Covenant tol>e their Go A l8 (b grofic a thing
ihe Covenant. ^^ imagine of Godjand fo expreflfely contrary to the word,
rfiat untUl you owne it,I will not impute it to you,aIthou2h
IknowtheAnabaptiftsinG^erwiiijTy iharac not to fty^ tbat
ihe Cffvcnant made with Ahabam was ameere eMrnaD things itnd
had mthingtd d&ewith et email life. As for that expreffion of
the learned Cameron thjtCiramcipmdidprimarilj feak the
earthly promife^&c. if by primdrily hee meant immediatly^
though nut chiefly^ that it icaled theft things /r/i wor^r, m
thy were types of ipirituall things, it may then pafle etm
grano fali/!^ \>vx\^y primarily be intendedprincipally, that
Circumcifion did cbiefyfiale earthly bieffmgr^ the opinion is

too

InfoHhtdftifme proved fr6m Serif ture. ^|t

too un&vory to be received : and whereas he3(and you with
him) (ay that Circumcifim did thus primarily fiak ibt earthly
part §f the Covenant^ I defirc to know of you what Scrip-
ture ever made Circumcifion a Scale of Canaan', wee have
exprefle Scripture that it (ealed the righteoufmjje of faiths,
whereby he was juftified, but I no where read that ii fealed
theLand of Canaan, Whereas you (vfythsugh thepromifes were
typts ofJpifituaU and heavenly things^ yet the things pfomifedwere
hutcarnaU and earthly j as the faerifices were hut camaU things^
though jbadotpe J ofJpiritHall: I reply, all thii U true^ but this
belongs to ^cadmittifiraticn of the Covenant C^ Was iaid
before) butmakesit never a whit the more a mixt Coye-
T\a.nt for the fitbftance of it', the Covenant then was more ad^
miniftred by carnall things then it is norvy and yet the ad-
miniftration of the Covenant even now alfo hath Ibmecar-
nall promifo, andpriviledges as well as then, as the exter-
nal! ordinances of the Gofpell^ Baptifiiie and the Lords Sup-
per; and wee as well as they have in the Covenant of grace,
the promiie o£jhis lifey and of that which is to come i and
fo you may^ifyou will,call ours alfo a mixt Covenant, con*
fitting both of tcmporall and foirituall bleffings ; and as
among them fome who were in Covenant did partake onely
of the temporall part, and never were partakers of thcfpi-
rimall, others of them were partakers of the (pirituall
partalfoj evenfomw^ fbme partake oftheexternall and cai^
nail part mely^ whilft others partake of bothi this you muft
grant to be true, unlefle you will maintaine that none are
now members of the vifible Church, but onely EleQ: ancf
true beleevers»

Secondly,y ou except againft mee that when Ifaidtbe man"
jftrcfadmimfirationoffhis Covenant tpos firfi By types ^ fia-
dowet^andfacrzfices^&c, it hadbeme convenient to have named
Circmncifionythat it mghtnot he conceived in belong to the fkh"
fiance of the Covenant : I reply, firft, this is a very finall quar-
rell,I added, &c. which fupplics both Ciitumcifion and
other things. Secondly, you know the Covenant of grace
was adminiftred by faerifices and other types before Circumci^
ponifminfiitmcd.

O2 Thirdly,

IOC

Pfofelyfcs
were Abra-
hams feed.

This is nor to
joyn with Jir
rnin'm.

Infant'BapifmeffOvtdfrtim Scripture.
Thirdly^ whereas I /aid there were yowf Profefytej in tU
Jem/h Church who were but felfe-juflidarht^ cartiaU and for mall
profeffofS^rvho areytt in tlye Scripturt called Abrahams feed^ you
znfwer I caU them fo without the warrant 0f Scripture ^ as you
conceive: to which I reply, my words 'wercthat there wm ano-
ther fort of Abrahams feed who were onely circkmcifed in theflefh
andnot in the hearty who though they Were home of Abrahlrns
feeiy $r profejfed Abrahams fatth^ and fo were lewes fafti
ihoHgh not nati, jet thej never made Abrahams God their portion
hut reftedinfonHwbat which wot not Chrifl^&c, and fo were to
perifiwiththe^Hcircumcifed, This you doe not' here deny
to bee true, olnely you would li ave me (hew where the Profe"
lyteswerec^UcdAbrahamsJeedylreply^ had I mentioned
no profelytes at all,but onely faid there were fame in the Church
of the lemsi^who were vijibk members y and part^tk^rs of outward
Ghkrch-priviledgej ^ and yet were not inwardly godly^ nor parta-
kes of the fpirttuail party and that ihe/e were called Abraham
fied' ai Well as other j^ it had bcea enough for my purpofe. I
named not PrOfelytes to adde anyftrength to the argu-
mcnt5 and becaulfe they are called God j people y I feared not
to caH them Abrahams children by profejfiony and never ex-
pelled to have met with z quarrell for calling them who
j.oyned to the Church of Ifrael by 'that common name
whereby the Church members were called, viz. the feede trf
Ahfoham or the children of Ifiael: and could no place of
Scripture be produced where profelytes are exprefly called
by this name, the matter were not tanti. But if it were a
thing of any moment, it would be no hard matter to pro-
duce evidence fufficient to prove that profelytes were called
liraelites and the feed of Abrahamy as AS^s 2, 10. and22»
compared, A&. 13.26. compared with Verie 43. but I for-
beare.. You go on and accufe me^ that herein I jojne with
ArminiuSywho Jaithy there is a feed of Alrabdm mumi^edy
, Kom* 4.9. 10* Gal 3 . GaU 4. tpho Jeeke jufii feat ion and falvati-
on by the worlds of the LaiPy and that bee maf^s this the ground
of wrefting that Scripturey and that Mr, Bayne upon Ephef r.
fayes that the feed of Abraham without any adyowd fs never
fo tak^n:. I reply, you give an high chai'gc, but a Weake

proofe 2

jj^fanhBAftifmefroveifrom Serif ture. loi

proofe h I f*aid there was a fort of profelytes who we re the
Jeed of Abraham hy profefjon omly^ or outward cleavhig to
thcCovcnant^ who though they profefTed Ahrahamj faith,
yet did not place their happinefle in Chrift , or make
choyce of Ahfahams God for their aJI-fiifficient portion. Sir,
is this to joyne with hrmimnsm his interpretation of the
ninth to the Komofis ? i. How doe you prove that Arminiu^
nieanes the "words which you cite, of JewL'h Profelytes >
NnUifiln carnU cenfintur infimney faith Arminiufy doth hee
meane that no profelytes were the feed o^ Abraham accor-
ding to the fielli? if fo, I beleeve acute Mr. Baym would ^^^ ^jf ^ °^
have been more wary then to have oppofed him in that mem,.Thar^cj-
point. Nay Mr. Bajnt in the very felfefame page which viii /unkiarits
you quote, having fct downe Arminiuf his two conclufions. ^^^tf called A-
( I. The children of the promife are reckoned for the feed. ^I'^hamsMd,
a. The children of the fielh are not reckoned for the feed-,)
pafles his judgement upon them in thefe words. Page 140.
The Conclufions are trne^ Ifut not prtlnent to this fen fe^ for the
chMen ofthejkfif bere^are thofe omlj n>ho in courfe of nature came
from Abraham, But you very wifely mention neither of
thefe Conclufions of Arminius^ you thought it more for
your advantage to faflen upon fbme other propoiition laid
downe by Armtniuf^ and as you fet it downe it runs riius :
There is a feed of Abraham^ quiper opera kgU pflitiam & fa-
Intern confeqfttmtur}, I was much amufed at the words* I
know Armtniuf faith, De»f ex promip ac debito dat v'uam
aternam operanti^ but he meanes it not of the workes of the
t awi and therefore I wondered to fee opera legis in your pro-
pofitionj but the word which puzled me mofl, was confe-
qmmtur. Sir^ let me intreat you to correct your booke,
there is no fuch word as confequtmtur m Arminita his expofi-^
tion, and it doth not agree with your own expofition, for
confeqwrntur jufitiam^ is by you tranflatcd. Follow after
righ tcoufiieffc. I have per ufed Arminius^ (with wh om you
fay I ] oy n) and Mr. B j) «f,from whom you fay I fay I differ,
and I (hall give an account of both to the reader.

Firft fcr Arminiut^ his words are thefe, Filii camis hpo-
folohdcUcofunt^ qni per opera legit jufiitiam & falutem con^

O 3 fc£tantur.

102

Infant'Bdftifmef roved from Scripture.

{cduvitur :,notconfi(juuntur: fo that die ^ucftion between
t\xmii^m and Mr. B^ne^ is> whether in that place; namely,
in the Qto the RomanSj the Apoftle by children of the flcfh,
^QQ nieane fuch as fedc rlghteoufnefle by the Law ^ Hue in
loco^ {aith krmmim.ihe phrafe is to beefo interpreted in thi^
place* NojfaithMr.B^we, itia not to bee taken fo in this
place, though it niay be taken fo in other places : I (hall fct
down Mr, iajnej his own words, that the Reader niay fee
Bayne in E- bow groffdy you have abufed me ; For ihougb ( faith Mr.
phefp.ii'^ Baynff^ ohildrm of the fiipj in form other Scripture^ deth mte
cap, 1 . 5 • out judiciaries^ finking fdvation in the LaWy )et here the liter aU

tmdningii to (fitak^^a child ef the fiep^beingjuch a ene as de^
fcerid^ihfrom Abr2Lh3.m according to tkflefh* Good Reader
obferve,!. That I was not expounding the 9 to the Ro-
niansjandtherforedidnot at all meddle with the quei^ioR
l>erween hrminius and Mr. Bajfne,

2 . I am cleared by Mr. Bafne himfelf^whom Mr. Tombes
produced againft me. 3 • The words which cleare me, arc
within fix lines of thofc words which Mr. Tombes cites a-
gainft me : whether Mr. Tom^ej be guilty of negligence or
iaKhoodj I leave to your judgement. 4. The errours of
ArminiiM are many in the place cited, and I joyne not with
him in any one of them. Firft, I doc not conceive that
by [Word] Row.p. 6. the Jews meant the fcgall Covenant,
but the word of promiie, or elic the Apoftle had not anfwe-
red direftJy, v* the 9 • Secondly, by the word [Seed] was
meant the children pf thepromife, the eleft. Row. 9* 8. as
Mr.^i«jwe,nay /4rwi«;wfconfefleS5 ontly Arminius fd^Ai
that they were elefted upon Gods forcfight of their faithjan
Opinion wch I deteftjas being injurious to the free Sccffeftu-
all grace of God. I need not inftance in any other errours,
only draw this Corollaryjif God did ^y\Si his promife made
to the {eed of Abraham^ though God did rejcft fo many of
his feed (that had the token of the Covenant in their flefti)
not onely from ialvation, but from the partaking of out-
ward privilcdges, from the dignity of being accounted
his people any longer : then God may rejcft ma,ny of the
ftcd of bcleever^ now under the polpcl^ though baptized,

not

ftot oncly from falvation, but from all Church-priviledgcs
beiides baptifrae, and yet make good his promile iealcd m
baptifme, in which he engagcth himfclfc to be the God of
bclceving Chriftians and their iced.

Fourthlyj Mr. Toniba (peaks of Abrahams /ee<^^<:ji7/»^3
and faith that promife^QI will be the God of thy feed] was
made good to Abraham in the calling of the Gentiles^ pag.
45. Now A/r.TiJwj^jei will not fay that all the Gentiles
were made partakers of an inward calling, the Gentiles then
which had but an outward calling, arc the feed of Abra-
ham onely^y ^r«!/^j(^(?»layl,becaufethey are of the fame
profeffion with the fpirituall feed of Abraham , who are
inwardly called. If Mr. Tomhes fay that it is better to term
them feed b 7 calling, then feed by profeffionj if it bee but
an outward call^ where lyes the diiFerence ?

Fifthly ,Mr. Bayne and Arminim are agreed, that by the
feed of Abraham, Kom. 9,8 . is meant the eleft oncly, Omnes
flit promijjiofiis cenfentnr in /emine^nuliifilii carnii cenjefitur in
fiminty (aith Arminiuf*

Sixthly, the principall difference between Mr. Bayne and
hrminiufy is, that this eleft feed was elefted upon Gods
forefight of their faith, as hrmimuf would have it ; but I
joyne with Mr. Baynt in detefting this opinion, as injuri-
ous to the free and ^e6ball grace of God : and Mr. Baym
joynes with me, in confeiling that in Ibme places of Scrip-
ture they who feek to bee juftified by the Law, are termed
children of the flcfh. To conclude this of hrminiw^ I ^J^'J'"^^^
wonder you fhould feck to caft an odium upon my expreffi- sermw!^
on (asyoudohere and ftverall othertimcs) by %ing it's
a joyning with Arwi«ii#f jwhcn you know wellenough that
you joyne not oncly in an cxpreflion or two , but in this
your very doftrine of oppofingPaedo-baptifme, with that
monfter Servetw^ and others liKe him.

Laftly, you are much more ftumbled and offended rfiat jvir. Blake yin-
Mr. BlahQiouid Cay ^7 here yH remained in the Church a di- dicated,
ftin& ion ^ hhrzhTimsfetJyfime home after the fiefh^ f&me of'
terthefpiriti and that hothtbefe have a Church intereft ^ or a
birthright Uf Church privihdgesy and that hee f^r this aUedged

io4 Infdnt'BAftlfme proved fr^m Smptme.

Gal,^* 29. evenfiitisnom^&c, I reply, for my part I a«
much wonder atyourcallingthefe paflages very groflc, for
though it bee granted, i . That the Apoftle (hews IJhmae I to
be intended as a type of civill jufticiaries who fought righ-
teoufneiTcby thelaw. Yea^ and 2. that thefc -perfecuted
the true Church, who fought juftification by Chrift. And
3. That they are caft out from being heires, never to par-
take of the fpirituall priviledges of the Covenant, yet be-
cause it is apparent that even thefe (who PW faid were ty-
pified by the fon of Hagar) had a viiible ftanding in the
Jewifh Church, and were partakers of outward Church
priviledges, and were the fame of whom P^«/ipeaks, JRew,
10. 3^ Who bei?ig ignorant ofGodsri^teoHfmjJe^ and going a*
bout tyefiahlip their own righteoufnejje^ have not Jkhmittedihem-'
fjvu unto the ri^teoHJneffe of God, And that in the fame
place ?aul himfelffaith^ez/ewyS it if «tfm»(even in the Church
ofGallatia it was fo) and Paulhy this Do%ine laboured to
make them better.) I fee not why Mr. i?/(rj^e might not ule
this as an argument, that fbme have a vHible Church
niemberfbip , and ought to partake of outward Church
priviIedges,notwithftanding they will not have the inheri-
tance of children, unleffe they regent. The thing which I
conceive offends you in his expreflion is , that hec thinkes
.there is a flelhly feed of Abraham: but 1 know no reafon of
flumbling at that phrafe, fince by flefh is there intended any
thing which is our ownj whatever we put confidence in,and
Icane upon, as that which may commend us to God 5 wjier
ther our birth, or parts, our underllanding, or morall ver-
tue, yea, or our Religious dutie5, and perforpiancfls^ all are
^^cLl '"'^'" but tie(h;and this St. F^^«/ plainly fignifies,^ii/.3.3 2<G,Weare
^^^^^ ' theCircHmcifion nbich w,)rJhip^Gfidinthe/pjrityandput,.no

What meant cgnficlence in the pjh^ and i|Q the vf rfe following he tells you
by feed of the what he meant by/e/2?^z'/«. his birthright ^ his circumcijion^
flefh. his unbiameab/d converfation^ &c. And might not Mr. Blak^

fafely fay, there is flill a feed of thefe who are vifible mem-
bers?

Reply to i^j fecond conclulion was to this effcft , Ev^r fince God

^'^•^ gather

gathered a difiinB number mt of the tforld^ ta be his Kingdom^ Minx% raken
Cuk.UoufMd, in Off option t$ the rsft of the tvarld, Vfhichi, '^■^^^J,''^^'''
the Kwdornc^ Citie And Hjufehold &f Satafi ; Hec nrvuld have re^tj^
InfanUof all tphj are taken, into Coveriam rv^ith h'lm^ to htC jc* •
counted hify to hlong to h'lmy to hU Church andfimily^ and not ta
tieVeviUj'

So much weight lies upon this Condufioii, and it fo
neerely concernes you to make at leait a (hew of overthrow-
ing it, that in 40 Pages and upward you try all your wtrs^
and artifices to fhake the ftrength of it, 'by fcornefuti. fpe^"
ches^hy clotiding and darkling what was cxprefledplainely,
by framing fenfej^ and confuting rrhai was never afferted nor in-
tended^ by Bringingin at the by yOpiniofis of other men, andds^
fpHtinj againfl tbemfy alkdging ibe Tefiintonies of fome emi"
nently learned men] when they are nothing to the pnrpefe in handy
and bjfeeking to elude the firength of my argnments : In all
thefe I (hall attend you, and endeavour to cleare what you
would feeme to have obfcure, briefly to pailc over what is
impertinent, and chiefly buckle with you in that which •

concernes thecaufe in hand.

Firft, you tell me this conclufion is a bnsklnythat nuy het
put on either kg^ right or left^ exp^efi fo amhigHoufiy that yon
l^orvnotinrvhatftnfetotak^it,

Truely Sir, you take a courfe to make it ^eme fo : I knew R^F -y
a man in Cambridge that Went for a great Scholler, whofc
remarkable facultie was, fo to expound a Text, as to make
a cleare Text darke by his interpretation^ even thus have
you dealt with a plaine Conclufion, you bring firftj three
forts of lenfes, then you fiibdiviJe thetu, and under each
of them bring feverall Imaginable fenfes^ foure or five un-
der one head, £ve or fix under another head, and then
blame me that 1 have not diftinUlyfit downe in mhtch of theft
fenjts^ Infants of Beleevers belong to the Covenant^ whether in
re^eft of Eliiiion^ or of afromife of grace in Chrtfiy ' whe-
^evpoten^i^Ujy or. aS^itaUy^ whether they are fo to bee ac-
counted by an zGt o^ fciencey or faitby or opinion, and that
grounded on a rule of ebaritie^ or prudence^ or probable hopes
firthefntttre; thus you expreffe your skill in multiplication

P of

lOtf

The fence of
this fecond
propoftrion
cleared.

Men ma> bee

andertheCo-
vtnanr fevcrall

fpincuailyyand
fotne under the

f'/ifdnuVAfufine frcttdfiem Scrip$fre.

of fcnles ; But I reply, that hce that runs may rcademy
ftnfe^ and with the tenth part of the paines you have taken
to fatten a Tenfe upon it, which I never thought upon^
might confidently have concluded that I meant of m vifihk
priviledgeinfacievifibilisEeelejray or have their (hare in the
feduf externum, which my words plainely enough held
forth when I fpake of Gods iepar ating a number out of the
world to be his Kingdome^ Cicie, Hpufehold in oppofition t9
ib^ refi of the nrgrld which ii the J)mUs Kingdome : and after-
wards in the (ame Concluiionj God bavtngleft all the refi of
the world to beevifiblj the Vtvills Kingdome (although among
them many belong to his invitible kingdome as being of the
nunibcr of his eh^^ he will not permit the Devil! to come and
lay viable claime tg the off-Jprivg of thofi rvh^ are hegotten of the
children of the mfi High^ h not this plainc enough ? that as
all they who by extcrnall vocation, and profellion joyne
to the Church of God, (though few of thofe many fb cal*
led are elefted)have a; vifible right to bee elicemed members
of the Church U Kingdom of G6d5(which iS a vifible Cor-
porationidiftin£^5 and oppofite to the reft of the world,w*^^
is vifibly the corporation and kingdom over which the De-
vill doth reign;) So God would have their children^ even
whiiethey are children, to enjoy the lame priviledgc with
them:, what Velian Vivtr is there any need of^ to fetch up
the meaning of this ? But that you may no longer complaine
of not under (landing myfenfej I fay plainly. The Cove-
nant of grace is fometime taken firiBlj^ fometime lari^ly ;
as it is conlidered/^ri^/y^it is a Covenant in which the ipii-i-
tuall benefits of juftificationj r^eneration, perfeverancc,
and glorification are freely promifed in Chrift. Secondly,
as the Covenant of grace is taken largely^ it comprehends
all Evangelicalladminiftrations which doe wholly depend
upon the free and gratious appointment of God, and this
admiaiftration is fulfilled accx>rding to tlK: cQunfell of
Godswflk fometimes. it was adminiflrtd by his appoint-
ment in/;/''/, j^<«^.'^»'<?/:^^«''''^^^%^^^ Ordinances*:, this Co-
venant of adminiilratioit^God faid, ZjcWj 1 1. ID. hec did
hnak^ mth ibs feofie of the JtWh and at the death of Chrift

hee

InfAf^^Baftifme pnvedfkom ScrifiuH. t^7

h<€ did wholly evacuate and aboiifti, and in ftcad thereof
brought in the adminiilration which wee liveunder^wherc
alfo hee rcjefted the Jews or broke them ofFfrom being his
people in Covenant, and called theGcntileS3 and graffed
, them in ramsmm dtfrjCiorum lifCf^m^mtg the fUce (f the bran-
ches broken off', as your felfe page 6$* doe with Beza rightly
cxprefTe it. Now according to this different acceptation of
the Covenant are men differently faid to bee in cavenant tPlth
God^ or to be members of his Church andfamilj, fome are my-
fiicalimcmbtrs by inward grace, the inward grace of the
Covenant being beftowed upon them, being made new
creatures, &c. others are members in regard of the extemall
and vijible ^conomj ; accordingly among the Jewes fome
T^vere faid to bee Abrahams feed according to the fromife^ and
not onely after the Be(h, who had the Circutncifion of the
heart 2ls Well as that which was (?«/wjf^, others were Jewes
in pirofatulo^ ] ewes oncly in fjrovifibilii ccclefi^e: and in like
manner is it under the Evangdicall admhiifiration in the
Chriftian Church, fome are in Chrift by myfticall nnion^
fo as to bee regenerai;e,&c. i Cor^S. 17. aC^Tr.j.iy. others
are laid to bee in Chrift by vifi^le anul externall proJejfi(ftr^ as
branches which beare no fruite, iifhn 15. 3. and thefe alfo
are called bi'anches of the Vine, though fuch branches, as
for uniruitfuIneiTe (hall at laft bee cut off and caii away5and
oftentimes tells us many on calUdjbutferp are chofeni[Xnio both
thefe do belong great priviledges, though the friviledgcs of *

the one be (avingaSt the other not,as (hall fay and by appcarc.
Furthermore, according to this different notion of the
Covenant groundedupon the different mstmer of mens be**
ingin Chrift, there are alfo different i?ej/(fi belonging un-
to the Covenant v f<hne peculiar and proper onely unto
thofe who arc in Covenant fpirituaUy^ ei ^oad fifhftanthm
€t gratimnfederps, as the teflimony and Scale of the Spirit,
2 CorA'2%, Upbef i. I3, 14. 30. Kom. 8. 16, others com-
mon and belonging unto all, who are in the vifible body
and branches of Chrift the Vine in any relation, and Ip
in QtQi^cxaxit quoad exteraam dcontmuam^ till by icandalous
finncs which are inconfiftcnt with that very outward dig-

P 2 nitie

joS I»fapt^B4ftijm€ f roved from SmfPure,

riitieand profeilion they cut themfelves off from that rela-
tion, and fiich are the yifible and cxternall Scales annex-
ed to the externall profcflion among Chriftiansj as the
Jewifti Scales were to thofe who were Jewes externally.

When therefore I Tay, they are vilibly to bee reckoned
to belong to the Covenant with their parents^ I meane
looke what right a vifii^lepr'fijforhsith to bee received and
reputed to belong to the vifible Church, ^tf^ vlfibk frofejf»\
that right hath his child ib to bee efteemcd : now all know
the fpirittiall part and privjiledges of the Covenant of grace
belongs not to vifible profefTors as z;/^/«3 but onely toluch
among them who are inwardly fuch as their externall pro-
feilion holds out, but yet there are cutrpard Church-privi-
Grcat priv'r ledges which belong to them as they are vjfifk profeiTors^
viiedgcs belong 4S. tok/,r9pHiedjkefonms 6fCiodfim,6.i* thefonms lof God>Pin^x
to them who th^daugkers. of min^Vettt. 14. i ,- -je dre^ihe Mdrea of the herd
cxreTrluCo! J^«r G<j^ i and P^?//, Writing to ^vlfibk Church, Ga',^.z6.
vcnanr. feithjje* are all the children of God ^j faith in Chrift Jefus^{ytt

Gcn.6.i , I fuppofe you doe not thinke that all the Galatiam were in-
Deiir. 1 4.1. warcUy fo) fo likewife to bee reputed children of the 'b^gJomey
Ga! 3.26. J'/^«i.8. 12, the children of the kingdom jhall hie caft mty tlte>

children of the Covenant, M$. 5. 25. yre are the children cfthe
Covenant rphich God made unto our fathers, and many other of
their priviledges which belong to them, who are Ifraclites-
in this fenie, viz., being by fuch a feparation and vocation
* the profcfTcd people of God! T though they were not all

heires of the ipirituall part of the Covenant) Saint Taiil
r\ofTi.9. 4* reckons up in leverallplaceSj as Kom, 9.4^ to them pertaineth
the adoftion, even to the body of that people (not a fpiri-
/«Jii/ adoption, but the honour of beitig icparated and repu-
ted to bee the children pifiGod,i>t;«f. 14. ;!♦) and thcglorj^
andthefoz;ew^»//3andthe^iZ'i«g of the haw, and thefervice
of God, andthepn^wi/e/, yet of thefcP^«i faith, they were
not all children of A^raham,'wken he fpeaks of the foirituall
Iced. Solikeva(cKpw.3.i» after F^^e/. had fhewed Ko;».2.
ihztnothingbut f4iitha?idi^vpardhelinejfe^d.yc right. to the
fpiritHall pai tof the Covenant, and that all the cxternall
priviledges of the Jewcs, who were oncIy Jewes, in propar

tnlo^

Infaht-Baptifmtfrcvedfnm Sc/ifture. i^op

fttlo^ Jewcs outwardiy^were nothing to jurtification before
God, hce then propounds this quclii6n5Cap-3. i Whdt ad-
vantage then bath ihejerv^ or nphatprefith there of Circumci^
fi,m>- vjhzz privikdge or gaine is it to bee a viiibie profe/Tor,
a viiibie member of the JcwifhChuixh > hee aiiliverSi the
zdy^ntSLgeis great manjwayes^ and inftances hi this one par-
ticular, that the Oracks of God were djpofitcd to them^ the cu-,
iiody and difpenfation of his Ordinances^ which they
might u{e as their owne treaftire, and thereby learne to
know andfearehim, (therefore it is called thiir Ltiv^ Johft
8. 17, hp5 alfi Tpritten in yoHr Lotp) when the red of the na-
tions all that while were without God in the world^and re- John 8. t 7,
ceivcd the rule of their life from the Oracles of the DevilJ;, Deiu.3 j , 4,
according to that of the Pfalmiftj P/aL 1 47. 1 9^ 2 o Hepjfmd
■ hit word to lacoh^hptjiatuteJ andbis judrtneTits to Ifraely hue
hathvotdealt jo rvitbanyrjatkn^andai for his JHdgenie^f4jtbey --■.
have not k^un^ne them : So Veut. 3 3.4. The Latv a called the in- P^al. F47« 20*
heritance oftht Congregation of lacoh. And although it bee
true that theie viiibie ahdcxternall priy Hedges- will end with
the greater condemnation of them who live and dit in , the,
abule of thei^ wliile they reft in Coriice^ m tl^e outward^
thing it felfe, and labour not after the /pzW/?^^// part, yec
the priviledges themfdves arc very great. It is no fmall mei^
cy to have a mcmberfhip or viiibie ftanding in that focietie
where (alvation isordinaryj this our bleffed Saviour told
the woman ofSamariay hhn i^.22. Salvation ii of the ler&es^ John 4. 22.
this was the prir iledge which the Church c^ the Jewes had
above the Samaritans, that ialvation was to bee found in
their way^ and God in his wi/edome hath {o ordained it to
have his viiibie Church made up of fuqh^ I meane fo, as to
have iome of them inwardly holy, and ethers of thejm hy
cxternall profeflion onely^ for this reaibn among many
others, that there might bee fbmc who (hould from time to
time bee converted by the Ordinances difpenied in his
Churchjaswell as others, who (hould be built up, that the,
Paftors which hee fets up to feed his flocke, (hould not one-
ly bee nuriing fathers to ^«i/^ up, but alfo fathers to beget,
fonnes and daughters to him: and though all are bound

P - de '

Srtb

An extein^ll
riglitto rhe
Covci-umrpro'
ved.
Kom 1 1 .

Tht« proved
from Mr,
Tombes owne
princifles.

Infant'Bdfufme pr^tdfrBm Scrifturi.

^juntobc^intfiofdlyholj^ whojoyneto the Cliurch, yet
would hee have his Church admit thofe who profefle their
willingneirc to bee his, that hee by his difcipline might
i^iake them inxp^rdlj fuch as they extcxnaSy profejji them-
Mv€S and as yet are not in truths as into a Schoole are ad-
mitted not onely fuch as are al^naUj learned^ but fuch as are
^c^icoi/efi/to^belearnedj not onely quiadoHi^fed ut fint do^i:
and who ever will deny thiSj tliat thive are fame rightly ad-
miiud by the Church to vijihk memberfhip^ uho onely p^tske of
ihevifible prhjiledgef yumik deny y that any are vilible members
who are not inwardly converted:> which I thinke you will
doe, but left you or any other (hould, I (hall at the pre-
fent back it onely with that (peech of the Apoftle, Kom.ii.
where P^/*/ ipeakes oi [onHbramhesgraffedinto theOlive^aful
aft^WJfds broken off, not onely the Ien>es whom hee calleth
the naturall branches w^ere broken off, but the Gentiles al(b 5
the Gentile Churches who weregraffed in in their roome,
and were made partakers of the roote andfatnejle of the Olive y
even they alfo may bee broken off if they beleeve not, and
God will no more ipare thefe branches then hee did the
other, now this cannot bee meant of ai>jr breaking off
from the i»i^i/?^/e Churchy from partaking of the fftrituall
roote and fatnefle of the Olive 5 from this neither Jew
nor Gentile arc ever broken off, it were Arminianifme to
thepurpofetoaffirmethe contrary, it nxift therefore bee
meant onely of a vifible flanding and externall participati-
on of Church-priviledges; and if you thinke othcrwayes,
that none of old were, nor now are viiible members of
the Church j or had right to externall Church-priviledgcs,
unleffe tliey were inwardly fan^tifiedj \ bdfcech yoi^ in
your next, to cleare this, and open our eyes with your evi-
dence that wee may lee it with you, and in (lead of leading
your Reader into a maze by framing multitudes cf fenfes &
the like, produce Ibme fblid argumentstofhew, and prove
that no other but true beleevers, may inforo vifihilifKccU'
J7<f, bee reckoned to belong to the Church and people of
God. But I fuppofe in this particular, you will hardly
deny a lawfulncfle of admitting men into a vifible com-
munion

Infsnt'Bapiijmefr^edfrem Serif tMTC. i^n

niunion upon a vifible profeffion^ and that rightly, even by
a judgement of faiths though their inward hoJinef fc be un-
known to us; for fo much you grant, /)^. 159. and if by a
ludgement of faith a Miniiter as Gods Steward may di--
fpcncethcfeale of the Covenant ofgrace, and not ftay
from applying the feale to him, who makes an oanA^ard
profellion^ becaufe wee have not a Spirit of difccn line, to
know them tobeereallbeleevers 5 then it undeniably fol-
lows, Thatfome may rightly be accounted to belong to
the Church of Godj and Covenant of grace a befide reall
beleevers, which is as much as I need;, to make my {^nik and -
meaning in this Propoiition to pafle for currant. And tru-
ly Sir, whoever will grant that a Minifter in applying the
fcalcjumft doe it ^ej^^j in faith, being afTured he appiycsit
according to rule; muil: eithef grant (iich a right as I plead
for, that many have right to bee vifible members^ and bee
partakers of the externall admjniftration of Ordinances,
though they be not inwardly fan^bified; or elfe hee muft by
revelation be able to fee and know the inward converfion
of every one hee applyestheiealcunto^ for certainly hee
hath no written Word to build his faith upon, for the ftate
of this or that man. And for my own part, when once you
have difproved this, that there is fiich a vifible mcmberfiiip
and right to externall adminiftrations a? I have here
infiftedupon, I fhall not onely forbeare baptizing In-
fants, but the adminiftration of the externall feale to
any, what profeffion fbever they make 3 untill I may
bee d/e fide aiTured , that they are inwardly regenerate.
This then was and is my meaning, when I fay. That In-
fants of believers are confederates with their TarcntSy that they
have the iame vifible right to be reputed Church -members,
as their Parents have by being vifible? mfijfors'^^nd are there-
fore to be admitted to all ftich external Church-priviledge*
as their Infant age is capable of^and that the vifibk Cbnrcb
is made up of fuch lifihk Profcflors and their Children^that
^eirrvifffe takes in neither all of the one, nor the other,buc
fome of both. Whereas therefore you fay you arc at a
fiand to finde out nhui my maiming it^ and know not n>hat ta

diTiyi

g J ^ Ufant' Baptifmi f roved from Scripture.

* denj, or rfhat to grant : and agaifi^ pag. 45. 'Tou are at ajkand
whether I mamihey arc-to Bee taken in with their Farentsinto
Covenant^ in refpe£i §f faving graces-^ or the outjvard frivikd^ ,
(}/ Ckuvcb'ordinanrts, Ibeieech you ftand no longer doubt-
fiiU of my meaningj I meanc ot* theni^ as I nieane of odier
viiible Profcflbrs, they are taken into Covenant both ways
?e/pe5fi^e)5 according as they are eleft^ ornotel©^^, all of
them are in Covenant in relpe^t of outward priyiledges.the
ele^ over and above the outward priviledges, are in Cove-
nant with refpecl to favinggracU'^ and the lame h to bee
faid of viiible members, both T^arentt and Infants jumitrtht
'New Tcflament^ in this point of being in Covenant, as was
to be faid of vifible members^ in the former adminifrration,
whether y^ we/ and their ct;i/^r^;2 3 or iPr^/>'/ej- and their
children, I endeavour in alkhis to fpeak. as clearly as I can
.poflibly, not onely becaufe you iay you are oft at a (land
to pick out my meaning, but becaufe this miilakeruns
through your wholeboqky that none are tobe reputed to
have a viiible right to the Covenant of grace, but onely
luchaspartakeofthefaving graces of it. Now I proceed
with you.

When I iay^That God would have bclcevers children
reputed to belong to his Church and family^ and not to the
dcviUs. You anlwer^ That je/</<^re 1 ufethat exprejjion (of
not hdongz»g to the Devils Kifjgdame^ to. pjeajc thepceple. But
Sir, why doe you judge my heart to intend amiilej in uiing
an expreili on which your felf can not miflike? I have more
caufe to think you ufe all thefe words (i*.c^«« 7^ i^j denyed ktn
God opoitld have the Infants (>fMkever^lp$Jotne fori to Jps^ac''
counted his^tobdlongtohlm^bii ChuYchmdftmily^ and not to the
Veviilj, Andagainej ?//jjf>'^ein facie viiibHis Eccleiisej the
Infants nf'B^Levers aret'ohee acc>mnted Gjds^ &c^^ onely ' ad
Ml . Tomks faciendum poptelmny to pjeafe the people , becaufe this is not
leaves all In . your judgement 5 for When you tpeake your full-meaning
^vcntohcim-' '^"4^»fe of thispoint^ you profefrej'(?« %i>a7 Z2^ more pro-
dcr the vifiblc fnifefortbetn in reference to the Covenant^ then to the children of
kingdom of the Tarkes : And evenj^eft' ypu onely grant them a nearer pajji*-
'Ocvii aaiuii7.4/?/>tobeIongto the Covenant of gracethenthe children

of

l/2fant-B.4^ufmepfovedfr$m Scrlpme. iij^

of Infidels have: therefore in your judgement they are noc
now actually belonghig to it, but oncly in a pdfibility : €o
th at though they m ay be accounted to belong to the King-
dom of God potentially^ yet (by your do£irtne)they belong
to the Kingdom of the Devill a^hialty 5 andall tfiis chari-
table opinion which here you exprefle toward them , con*
taines no more then 1$ to be allowed to the child of a Turk,
if born among Chriftians ; efpecially, ifaChriftian will
take itj and bring it up in Chriftian Religion^ and by what
may w*e ground any probable hopes they will aftually re-
ceive die profellion of Ch rift, fince by your rule there Is
no promife, no exremalfCovenant ? lyhy may I not have
as good hopes of Heathens children^ if Godspromiie helpe
nothere^ Butfayyou^Tawj^ them aCftully memhersaf tke
vifibk Churchy is to overtbron^ the difinitions cf the vtfihk
Churchy that P rote ft ant fVr iter sufe togwe-^ becaufe tliey mafit
be allChriftians by profijjlon. I reply, it overthrowsit not
at all, for they all include the Infants of fuch Profcflbrs j as
the vifible Church among the Jewes did include their In-
fants^ wj/eCand/cwj^/etoo, left you fay that Circumcifion
made them members:) I adde alio, Baptiirae now (as wcU
as Circumcifion of old) is a really though impliciU Profcffi-
on of the Ch riftian Faith. But (fay you) Infants are &mfy
pijpvey UK d dee nothing Vfherebj tb^ may ^ee denominated vtfihk
Chriftians. I anfwer^cvenasmuch as the Infants of Jewcs
could doe of old, whoyet in tlieir dayes were viiible mem-
bers. Tea (fay yo\x) fiirther it vptllfollowy That there may bee
a vtfihk Chttrch nphich osnpfis onely of Infants of heltevers, 1
anfwer> no more now then in the time of the Jewifti
Church; it's pofliblc, but very improbaUe, that aUtnemen
and Women fhould dye and leave onely Infants behinde
themjand it's farre more probable that a Church in the A-
nabaptiftswaymayconfift onely of Hypocrites. Againe^
you affirme, IF'e are not to account Infants to bikng toGody e*-
ther in rejfe& of eleSion or promije of grace^ erprefim fiafe ef
inrSeingJn Cbiifty or fuittrt eft ate by mj it£i of fcimce or faitk^
mthoHi a particuUr rtvelaiiony becaafe there it m gtimiU de*
cUration of God^ that the 2rfams<f prefim beknferi mi^fmtt^

f 14 itffAn^^Baftifmef roved from Scripture.

dS or fontiy either are eUtted to Itfcy or in the Covenant of grace
mCbrifiy either in refpeH of prefent in-hein^^ or future eji ate*
To which I anfwcr briefly, though all this bee granted, if
Rieant of the fpirituaUpart of tlie Covenant onely., yet this
makes nothing ac^ainft that vilible meniberfhip which I
plead for. Yea, I retort t!ie argument upon your felfe,
and dare boldly aiBrme , that by this argument, no vifbh
Church:, or all the vifibk Profefforj cf anj Church are to be ac-
counted to belong to God either in refpc6: of eleftion from
eternity, or promi(e of grace, or pre(en4: ftate of in-being
in Chrift,&c. without a particular revelation, becaule
there is no ded aration of God that the prefent vilible Pro-
fcffors arc indefinitely all, or fome, either ele£l:edto life, or
are in the Covenant of grace in Chrift, either in rtfyth of
prelent in-being, or future eft ate: look by what diftin6Uon
you will anfwer this , for vifible ProfefTors^ who arc
growne men ^ the fame will ferve for the Infants of be-
leevcrs.
Mr. Ccitm v*m- In the next place,y ou make a digrefion againft an expreffi -
dkated* On of Mr* CottonSyn>hich you thinly necefjarj to do ^ Uoaufi

ymfind^ many are apt to fhaliow the ai&ates cffuch men as Mr,
Ootton if yWishout examination^ he affirmed, the Covenant
of graceiigivinto Chrift^ and in Cbrift to every godly many
Om*\'j.j, andin every godly man to hii fee d'^Cod mil have fome
ofthejeed efewry godly manto fiand before bim for ever:2(^z,i\\^
this you except many things, and according to your ufuall
courfe , you frame many CtnCt^^nfihe Covenants 6eing pven
t9 every godly man andhis feed*^ fome whereof are (b abfurd,
as no dbaritable maa can imagine ever came in Mr. Cot'*
/wi thoughts, T^ every gedly man fbould betohis feed^ as
Cbrift to every godly man ^ which in truth (as you fay)would
belittfeiefJe then blafphcmy. But I (hall give you this (hort
Reply, that I take Mr, Cottons meaning to be, that looke as
Abraham^ I/aac^ aod Jacck^ and other godly Jewes were to
their feed , in refpcft of the Covenant ; t h at is every godly
man to his feed now; except onely in fiich things ^herein
thofe Patriarchs were types of Chrift , in all other things
wherein Godgromifcdto be ihc God of diem and their

fcc4

Infant' Baftifmcf roved from Serif mre n j

feed, godly parents may plead it as mudi for their feed nom^
as they could /^e;/; and whatever inconvenience or abiur-
dity you /ecm to faften upon Mr. Cottmy will equally reach
to them alfo : as for example, (uppoie an Ifraelitc (hould
plead this promilc for his feed, you'll demand // hit plead it
to his fad miverjally^thai* J fal/cy and fb oftherefiof your
inferenceSj look what Satisfying answer an Ifraclite would
give you^theiame would Mr. Cotton give, and as fatisfying-
ly. As for what you fay concerning Abraham, that by the
feed of Abraham are meant onely dcdc and beleevers; I have
fiifficiently anfwered to it before, and fhall have occafion to
meet with it again in its due place , therefore I now fay no
more of itjbut the chief thing you grate upon againft M.Co^-
ton^ is that exprcili on in the clofkyThat God mil hapefome of ^
ever f godly mans fetd fi and before him for eoer. Yo\x aggravate
this to the utmoft,as a bold diSlate^impofing on Gods cormfel ani
Covenantythe abfiirdity and faliity whcro^you indeavour?to
nianifeft at large: to which I anfwer in two or three words,
that iiippoiing his meaning to be as you fit it downe. That
it is in reference to ele&ion a^d everlaftiTig life, that every godlf
maapallba^efome oj hU fied infallibly Jazed. I confeflc the
cxpreflion is not to be jiiftifiedi nor doe I thinke that that
fenfe ever came into the mind of fo learned and judicious
a man as Mr, Cottnn Is: for my part, T think be onely allu*
dcd to that promife made to Jonadabj children^ Jer, 3 5 , thai
God would alwayes beare amerciflillrefpe&unto thepo*
flerity of his feivants, according to that promife, Exod.20,
^ . I rptll fifew mercy to ihoujandi of them that love mee and k^ept
my commandements. And that being his fcope, ( as I thinKe
it was) you need not have kept fuch a fiirre about it.

After your digreflion to meet with Mr. Cotton^ in (lead of
returning to my Sermon, you wander further out of your ^^ TVm^l**
wayi for after a (hort difcourfe of judging children to bee deaVours to fix
within the Covenant (byotimon) accordingtoa w/^o/Z'w- afcnfcupon
dence or cbarityQknCcs whicn I meddle not withrand therfore *'^ Pfopoiki-
need not flay the Reader in defcanting upon them. My tended by roo^
ruleof judging their condition, being limited to the Rule no, ownc4 jiy
of Gods revealed will in his ivord ) you then proceed in «ec.

0^2 m

Iitf Infant-Baftifmef roved from Scrifture.

an iiideavoiir^ wherein you doe but lofe time ^ and wafte
paper for many pages together ^ endeavouring to confute
whatwasneveraflertedbymejw^:. That the Covenant of
favwg grace is made to beleevers and their natural] Cttd;
that the I nfantsofbelcevers are fb within the Covenant of
grace^ as to be elcE^ed^ and to h ave al J the JpirmaUprivilecigej
ofthe Covenant belonging to them^ this you would needs
have to be my meaning: and I alnioft fufpeft you would
faften this lenle upon mee^ againft your owne light; for
fag^ 142. you doe as good aseleare mee of it; where you
fay, ToH JHpfofeihat 1 due not hold^ that the Infants of ht^
ieevers indifferentlj have a&tially the thingfigmfied by bapHfmt^
fmidnitvlthChnfl^ adoption^ pardon of finm^, regeneration^ &c,
Sothatinallthisdi/courfej you doe but InUari cumhrvis^
according to your owne expreflionj/jg. ^ j*. my plain mea-
ning was as is before expreiled; nor doe any of the ex-
preffions uied by niee , and here brought by you as Argu-
ments to prove this to4>e my meaning, hold forth any fiich
thing ; as^ they are rvltbin the Covenant of grace J)ehngmg to
Chrjfis hodj^ ks^gdome^ houfio'd^ therefore are to partake of the
feaie. True^ asvifibleprofeffbrs are^ ^///«vifible» Againe,
they are to hie accounted to belong to him ai rpeli as ihdr pa^
rents. Tme^ as well as their parents doe by a vifible pro-
feffion. Againe3*% are made free according to Abrahams
topy^ Truca according to the promife made to Abraham^ I
wiUhe a God to thee andthy feed*^ that looke as Ahraham
and his feed^ the Profelytes and their feed^ upon their vifi-
bleowning of God and hisCovenantj had this vifible prf-
viledge for their pofterity^ that they fhould be accounted to
belong to;Gods kingdom and houBioM with theii'parentsj
fo it is here.

One Aliment more you bring ( befide laying of my
words together ) to prove that this muft needs bee my
fcn% becau(e you doubt not but my meaning is agree-
able to the Direfifarx, which holds forth, That the promi'^
fusre made io beleevers amd their feed: and direfts Mini-
fters to prayj That God would mak^ *Baptifme to the In-
fant a feaie of adoption^ regeneratitm ;, and etem^U life. And

^ you

Infam - Bdftifme proved from Scripture. nj

you GOncltlde^ if^^* if there he not a promifi of thefe fttving graCij What theSa*
to Infants^ invainearethey^aptizedy and the feale is pttt to a <=f2"i^nr fea/es
blank'. To which Ifeply^my meaning is indeed according to ^h^^/^^^^^^
thcrenrcoftheDirc^ory^'andaccdrdingto that diref^ion, nally.^°" ^"°
I doc pray that God would make baptifme to bee a feale
to the Infant of adoption^ and the reft of thefaving graces
of the Covenant; yet I utterly deny your confequence^
that unleffethei'c bee abioliite promifes of faving grace to
InfantSj the Seale is fet to a blatlk^ for give mee leave but
to put the fame cafe^ firftjforthe Infants of the Jcwes^was
thefealeputtoablanke withthenij or had they all promi-
fes of faving graces^ Secondly^ let mee put the fame cafe in
growntmen^ who make an externall viiible profeffion^ and
tiiereuponaie adrtutted to baptifinej can any man fay^ that
alltheiaving graces of the Covenant, or the fpirituall part
of it, is promifedto all vifible profeflbrs? is it not abun-
dantly knowne that in all ages^ even in the b^ft times^ even
intheApoftlestimeSj multitudes were baptized, to whom
G©d yet never gave faving graces^ and therefore never pro-
mifedthem? for Had heemadea promife^ hee would have
performed it. But I (ball defire you a little to confidertlie
nature of a Sacrament^ in what fenfe it is a feale, and then
^ounecdeflumble at this no longer; thefe three things are
neceflarily to be diftinguilhed^firftji^e truth of the thingj^gnifi"
ed in a Sacrament? 2Lnd{econdly^mj interefi in that thing -j
And thirdly, mj obligation^ to doe what is re q Hired in or by that
Sacrament: I fay therefore^ that in every Sacrame^nt, the
truth of the Covenant in it felfe, and all the promifes of it
are fealed to beY eajand Amen ■, Jefus Chdft became a Mi-
niikr of thedrcumciiion, to confirme the promifes made
unto the Fathers, & fo to every one who is admitted to par-
take of Baptiline, according to the rule which God hath
given to his Churchj to admlniftcr that Sacrament^ there
Isfiakd the truth if ^U the promifes of the Goffely that they are
aUtruein Chrift, and that whoever partakes ofChrift,
(hall partake of all thefe faving promifes j this is fealed abfb-
lutcly in Baptifme, but as to the fccond, which is interefft
meum^ or the receivers intereft in that fpirituall part of die

0^3^ Cove-

X 1 8 infm-BAftifmi f roved f rem Serif ture.

Covenant, that is ftaled to no receiver ahfolutetyy but condi--
iionalljj in this partiailar^ all Sacraments arc but y^j^jww-
ditionalia^ condition all (eales, (ealing the (pirituall part of
the Covenant to the receiver y upon condition that hee
perjforme the (pirituall condition of the Covenant: thus
our Divine ufe to anfwerthc Papifts^ thusDoftor Ames
anfwers to BeUarmlne^ when BtHarmtne difputing again ft
our do6i:rines that Sacraments art fesla^ alledges then they an
falfely applyed ofientimej; hee anfwers to B Uarm'tm^ Sacra-
ments are conditional! Scales, and therefore not feales to
us but upon Condition. Novir for the third thing, the ohliga"
W(7ff which is put upon the receiver, a bond or tie for him
to performe, who is admitted to receive the Sacrament, this
third 1 fay is alio abfolute, all Circumcised and Baptized
perfbns did or doe (land abfblutely ingaged to performe the
conditions required on theirpart, and therefore all ctrcum-
cifed perfbns were by the circumcifion o^lieged t» J^epe the Law,
that is, that le^all and typicall adminift ration" of the Cpve-
nant which was then in rorce, and Infants among the reft
Werebound to tliis, though they had no underftanding of
the Covenant, or that adminiftration of the Covenant,
when this Seale was adminiftred to them. Now then, fince
in Baptifme there is firftan abfolute Seale of the truth of
the Covenant of grace in it felfe, a condicionall feale of the
receivers intercft in the Covenant, and an abfolute obliga-
tion upon the receiver to make good the Covenant on his
part, is there any reafbn that you (hould fay, that the feale
is put to a blank, where the fpirituall part or faving grace is
not partaked of?What you further fay here, that by Abra-
ham who is the father of the faithful! is meant Ahrahamf
perfbn, and not every beleever, that it was a perfbnali pri-
viledgeto Abraham^ and not a common priviledge to be-
leevers as beleevers, whicli thingyou repcate very often, it
fhallbee confideredin a more proper place. So that, you
havingthus wholly miftaken myfenfe, and undertaken to
difputc againft afenfe which I never owned, I may there-
fore pafle over your fix arguments which you bring to con-
futethisfenfe which you have (et downe; I joyne with

you

Jnfm-BdpifnHfniHdfnmSmfture, xi9

yoH that it is an crrour to fay that all Infants of beleevei s
indefinitely ^XQXxrxd&ri^tfavinggracef of the C(wmmt^ for al -
though I finde abundance of promifcs in the Scriptare, of
Gods giving faving graces unto the poftcritie of hispeople^
and that experience teacheth us that God wfes to condnue
his Church in their poftcritiej and that Gods ele^ion lies
more among their feed then among others , yet neither to
Jew nor Gentile was the Covenant (o made at any time^that
the ipirituall part and grace of the Covenant ihoald Bee
conferred upon them all^ it is iufficient to mee that they
»ay have a vifible ftanding in the Churchy partake o^ the ■
outward priviledges of the Church j and bee trained
up under that difcipline, or adminiftratlon of the Cove-
nant which God ufes to make efFe6hiaII to /alvation, in the
meanetime all of them to bee vifible members as well as
their parents, and ibme of them invifible as well as (bme of
their parents. And therefore although in fbme of your fix
rcafons there are divers exprclHons which I cannot fwal-
low, yet I (kail not here ft ay upon them, but examine them
when you bring them elfewhere to c^fpute againft mee, as
here you doe nots onely give mee leave to touch upon the
AaJ? of your fix arguments, becaufeinfomeicnfe it militates HowGhriftia-
againft my Thefts, Ifthis n?ere trug^ fay youy that the Cove^ nirymaybcc
nam 6f grace is a birthright priviUdge^ thm the children ofh^ called a birth-
Ueversarethicbildnn of grace by natan^ then Cbrifiiatjr art ^'^ *
horm Chri^ians^i net made Chrifiians 5 if the child of a Chri^i-
an he home 4 Chrifiiart^ as the child of a Turk^is borne a Turkt^
and if fo^ horp are they bonrne the children of wrath 6S wiU as 0^
iberj ? I anfwer. According to the Cenfe which lowne I mairf
iainethtsafferuontoheetrHe^ that the child of a Chriftian Is
borne a Chriftian, it is his birthright to bee fb efteemed j
I meaneto bee reputed within the Covenant of grace,' <!)^ia
member of the vifible Church* enct. I am fine it was^ fb,
the child of a lew watborma hw^ and it was his birthright
U bee an liraelite, a 'vifible member ofthe C hnrch of Ifraef,
and the Apoftle Vauli' uck not to uie the word Jew?/ by no-
iure^ GM, 2 J 5 . ^e who are lewt S hf natttfe^ and not ftnntrs nf

%hc, Q%ntdii^ hec thereoppofcs the naftiralJ priviledgebfthe

meoir.-

?2« ^*>f'«'-'BiHifmeffOvedfym Scripture.

members of the Chiireh to the condition of the heathpnc
and Korx. 1 1 .hee calls the r>hok nation of the lewes the natt
raBbfaachej if the Olive tree, becmCe they were the vifihu

Churchof God. Wmyoufayof them aTfoX^^^^^^^
tben.fe chUjnn J r^aihh «««^, j ^ j ^t^

Rom. xMt. confidferthe ApoftlEsdjflmaion, Rom.2Mft. betwixt a W
trtfrofaud, mfaciemfibiUseeckf,^, a Jewwithout.and a Tew
m ffc'ndao, a Jew within and your objedfon is aiifwered;
inthefirftfenfe, everychild of a beleevec isbomeaChri-
ltian,that K, hee is a member ofthe vifible Chnrchj i„
thefecondfen^, nonecan clainie it as a biithrighe, men
mult be made Chnftians in that foift, and not boFne Chri-
ftians; thasthisMichisa weake objeftion ofthe Lmheram
agamlttheC»fo»,/^j,is eafily anfwered, to bee^ children of
\vrath by nature, andyetto bee holy in an external] Cove-
nant jbemg borne of belecving parents,do no whit oppofe
oiieanother; thus itwas not onelyaraons the Teweiwbo
hadavifibleftandingunder the Covenant of grace, and m
muItKudesofthem were the children of wr«hj but even
thusit IS unto Ais day among grawne men, who are
admitteAtobeClmlbansin your way, fomeof them are
fitt^iCalIedandl>oljm±eficeofthtvifMe Church, and vet
notrocaramfacicde!, whiift others are fo both in the fpfrit
and in theJetter. Your great errour and miiiake is, d,at
you fpeakenot diftinftly of tlie Covenant of grac^, fo.
whereas the Covenant is to beelargely iJnderftood for the
whole difpenfauonofitin outward Odmijnees as wefl a,
favmggraces, you ufuaUytake itftriftjyfor faving graces
which belong onely to the eleft,- Youc/nnot bee igntrant
howourDivinesowne the outwarf adminiftration of the
VOMenant, under die notion of fadm txtermm, and the
IpwiWallgraceof it under the notion of fi^m Mnw?, ■
you ftiUreftrainetheCovenanttothefpirituaUpart onelv'
jind would perfwadeyour Reader, that they who fteake of
the Covenant ofgracemuftmeaneitthusitriaiy, andvet
youbrfcg not arguments todifprove a true vifible memt^r-
J^ Upon a vifibfcprofeffion, whether the inward faving
grace beknown or not. *

' ' Now

Ufm-BAftifmtfro'OtdfrmSmpme. ' lu

XT I ...„n,e with you to my Sermon, where yOur TbSe*. j
exam": LoS I Si for iUu/ration fake a .n^V^n '^^^
^r«OT c'eer -f^"? ' '^, ff^e mnt children art hrne dom a„H oth

"ir vi^tk c2«.«« cWi«» ./•'/'«> /""»"; this

Sverfarvtwoin the feven at diaatir^you who call my
oSySracomparifonorallafiontobee a diftat.ng can
Sle nthis very place, ChrijiianitU fay jou u no m.mt
toS^th s wal but even juft now the queftion betwixt
vo7S M.- 8/.%, and you here;^ without any proofe
f°t downe this peremptory conclufion ( wh.ch was the
very q^ftion bLixt you) ChriJHam^ u no m^shrth-
7^t,L the thing is true, caU it what you riafe, and
wflnotbeeblowne away with a fcornefuU pirffe. butfay

accvrdml toGods .fpointmtnu I reply, you carnally and fin-
fulTy Sge of Gods wayes in this particu ar for is it not
Iv Znt that the Tewith Church was m this like civill cor-
^Sns> we.: lot children then admitted in by birth.
Sht andyetwasnotgracethenas freeasit is now? had
the Kesby birth no feale ofgrace, and that by Covenant,
Suft Go'd was the God of them and th«r fte^ o
was there no grace accompanying the Jewilh iacra
menti > I fappofe you are not fo Popifli as to deny
r And fiiXlprayyoH tellmee, was not all done a-
^Bgttm as muchly thefreeeleaion of gra^.as^^^

„,> are vouof ArminiMhis mind, thatl^oi and E/^C both

XciS Frfons) are not propofed to us R»«. P . as fuch

XCldforthtousthefoYeraigntieofGodin eleftion

i^r,nrohation> Secondly, what meane you n./;e«j:»«P>,

Tis true if you nieane it of the ehitnb mufihle, alt is theie
Sic l5 th/free cleaion of grace, bur wee are fpeaki.^.

3 j2^ . Tnf^int'Baftifwe frcvedfrom Scripture.

of the vifihhChnvdi', and I hope you will not fay^ all is
there done by free eleftion of grace, you will not fay that
none have any iiitereft in the viiible priviledges, but onely
they who are ele£led. You adde, jea to conceive ib.it it ^ in
Gods Churchy a* in other h^mgdomes^ is a fiminarj of dangerous
fuperjlitions and errors 3 25r. Reynolds in hii conference xpith
' H^rt hath Jheriped that hence aroje the frame of government bj^
f atriarchs^ Metropolitans ^&c. and t hit pf (f^iy you) the reafon
of invocation^f Saints ^&c, I reply, true, for men to fay thm
it muft be^ or thw it may bte in Godj kingdome, because it is
fo in other kingdomes , is the very Seminary which Dr.
'Reynsldj /peaks of j but to mention Ibme things alike in
Gods Kingdome and other kingdomes, when God him-
felfe hath made them To, it is obedience andnotprefump-
tibn. Yea, it is a greatfinnetocall that a cai nail imagina-
tion which is Gods owne doing. Next when I fay, ifke
iakl a father into Covin ant ^ hee takes the children inrfith him^ if
heenje^the pmnts^the children are cafiouirp it h ihem^You mi-
iwer^ if I meant this in refpeSt ofekEilon and reprobation^ it is not
true^or in refpeB of the Covmant of grace ivhich is congruom ie ele^
[iionorreprohation,\ anfwer^ you judge right,! meant it not
of election or reprobation 5 nor that the faving graces of
the Covenant arealwayes made good, either to Infants or
grownemen, who are taken into Covenant; I meant it as
before I cxprelTed it, of taking in, into a vifible Church-
Handing, "^ut^fkyyoxx) neither is that true, it is not true in
re fpe^ of cutrvard Ordinances^ thefuthir may hce baptized and
mtihechildy andecontra^ the father may hee deprividy and the
child m^y enjoy thm, I anfiver, but this is th-e '^ aezymvoy^
the -thing that is in queft ion betwixt us, the contrary where-
untol undertake to juftifie; Indeed de fa5foy the one may
enjoy them, and the other bee deprived of tbem, a father
may bee baptised, and his child die before it bee baptised;
but our quefiionis dejure^ whether a Parent, being a be-
leevcr, his child hath not right to Baptiime, and other
Church-priviledges, asitgrowes capable of them, as the
Jewes children had to Circumcifion, &c. Ve fa&o^ it fell
Gutfoiiietimesfo^imong the Jewcs, Vavid^ the father cu*-
cuiiKifcdj and not*, the child borne to him by Bmhfbeboy

which

Infmt'Bapnfme proved from Scrtptme. ' 1 2 3

which dyed the feventh day 3 and was not Circumciiedj and
many multitudes more in the fame condition^ but is this
any thing againft the right of Infants to bee Circum-
cifed?

Next (^fay you) In this poht there is no certaintk or agree^
ment in the pdsdohaptifij deter miTuiiiori^ becaufi Mr, Ruther-
ford faiei^ the children ofPapifij^ and eXcommuHicJte Protefiants
which arc home within our vifibld Churchy are baptized if their
forefaihtrs havebeenfound in the faith '^ but others will deny it, ^ » ? r .
and you cite Mr -Cotton m theMargin^ who fayes that if both ^ndMrfccuon
t he ftearefl parents bee excommunicated^ the child is not to hee bap- reconciled.
tizfd^becaufe the parents, are to us as heathens^ and thttf^ fay
you, ?£dijhjptiflj as well m Anahaptip^ lih^ wazes of the Sea^
beat one againfi another : To which I anfwer^ This peculiar
controverfie betwixt fbme Psedobaptiih, by whofe right the
children are to bee baptized^ whether by right of their neareft
parents only, or by the right of their remoter forefathers,
who have been found in the faidij is very little helpefuU
t ) your caufe, nor is it any very great controverfie betwixt
thofe parties whom you mention, for Mr. Cotton in the ve-
ry words citeil, doth al mo ft, (if not altogether) reconcile
it, while hee faith, when the ncarejl p.zre?2ts are cxcommuni-
cate^ it may hee conjidered whether the child may not bee baptized
either if the Grandfather or Grandmother make profejfion^ or in
the right of the Honf^ldGovtrnour , who prom tfes to educate the
child in the faith, at by proportion of thi Law may hee gathered
from Gen. 17. 12, 13. Here is little or no beating of one
wave againft another , but both of them beating Ana-
baptifts; and I wiQi^ that your anfwer did no more beate
againft the very reafbn of the holy Ghoft, CPe^.ij.y. who
makes this his Argument why hee would have the male
children circumcifed , and thereby reckoned to bee in Co-
venant with him, becauie their parents are in Covenant
with him; this in mee you call a carnall imagination, take
heed you dalh not againft the Lord Jehovah himfelfe.
Laftly, whereas I adde thw it was in the time of the lewe/^
both Jewcs and Profelytes, ihey and their children came inta
Covenant together ^ and when Gud rejected the pare?2tj om of the
Covenant^ the children were cafl out mth them. To this you

B. 2 anfwer.

J24 Infapt'Baftijme proved (rem Smpture.

aniwer^indeed when parents rvere tak^n into Covenant^ their
children tvere circMmcijed with them^ hut whether this make any
thing for baptizing of Infants ymfl:>aU confider in due p'ace^sind
there (God willing) I (hall meet with you. But for the
fecond thingjthat when the parents were cafl: out of Co-
venant the Children were caft out with them j this (fay
you) if not true^-parmts might bee Idolaters, ^pofiates^ &c, yet
their children were to bee cu'cumdfed ; I anfwerjfirft.
Is it not evident in the Jewes at this day, that they and
their children are catt out together? and (I adde}ifyou
would (hew the faliitie of it^ you fhould have given fome
inftance, not of parents ^ who reniaine Gods people in
externall profelfionj not having received a Bill of divorce-
ment, though their lives might polUbly bee very wicked, but
of fome who were caft off from being Yiiible profeffors,
and yet their Infants remaine in the vifible focietie of the
Church, or of fome who were vifibly thus taken in, and
their Infants left out^ but in ftead of this, you ftill goc on
in your wonted equivocation of the word Covenant
of grace, taking it onely of the Covenant of faving
grace, not including the externall way of adminiftration
with it.
■Jo Se!} 6. Now(God willing)! (hall try what ftrength there is in

Vindicaring your exceptions againft thofe Texts I brought to prove
A0.1.3S.59- .that Infants of Bcleevers do belong to the Covenant now
as a proofc ot ^5 well as the Infants of Jewes did under the former ad-
leevc" to^bc-" "^Iniftration. The firft whereof was taken out of ASls2.
long ro rhe 3^- 39- where ^ei^r exhorting his bearers to beleeve and bee
theCoven>int baptized^, ufed this as an Argument taken from the bene -
ot grace. fit whidi fhould come to their poftericie, ^he premife i^ made

to you and toyjur children^&c.
Thefirft branch of your anfwer is according to your
nicrhod'o?an'> ^^^^^^^^^^diod, to throw dirt in the face of an Argument
iwcring. which pinches you, fleighting and fcorning that which you

know not how to anfwcr h and then to frame fcverall fen-
lesjjand raife a duft about it j To^complaine how irksome it
i^ to Readers and Anfwerersy tofinde them who alleadge a Text
ioparaphrafeupmit^ hut Jhow not how they conclude from it ^ If
^ harder fir yoH to fi/jdeyoHr enemy then to vanqmfh him^ and

ym

Infant'Baptifme f roved fnm Scripture. i ^ ^

you rvipj that I would firft di^Mly exfimnd^ and then frarm
my arqnmznts oh t of th T^xU

I anfwer, I hardly can tell whether it were bcft to ftiile
at or pity this grievous troublp you are put to, that your
patience (hould bee thus compelled devgrare udiurn'M (eemes
yoiiexpecledl (hould make lyllogifhies in nioode and fi-
gure, in a Sermon adpopnlum^ it you dk\ not, I wonder
why you (liould bee thus troubled, fince as plainely as I
could I exprefled the meaning of the Text: I firft Ihewed
where the llrength of the Argument hj^vlz. That not or. ely
tbewfilvu Hpdn tbeir faith and Baptifme Jhould rcceivafncb an
InvahtiihU t^enefit^ hut thfir childrm jbould alfo (^ H?ider the for-
mer admmijlration they rrere') bee taken into a heiier adminifira^
tion^ the Covenant being now exhibited in the befl and juUeft
manner^ and all they whether neere orfarre off^ who would owne
this (hoTtldthtmfeheJ and their children with them^ bee under this
heft CdVtnant^ oi formerly they were when the Covenant t»i9 more
dark^, Andinthc progrefTeof my dilcourfe I both pro-
ved this to bee the meaning, and answered the exceptions
to the contrary.

Next follows yourfeveralllenles : You doubt whether I-Ms.Toidejhh
fetch ch'ildrenin und:r thefirft part^ I will be thy Gud^ or whe- *' r in mulri-
tha under the fecond^ I will be the G§d of thy feed. Or whe- P'>'"S ^'^w^c.c.
thcr \ meane if off avinggrjce J y or Chureh-priviltdgej. One
while you doubt whether my Jenfe bt^ thai God will be the Qod
sf their clnldren if they oBeyhii call: then you rather guefTe it.
That if the Vareras obey ItU call, bee will be the God of thim^and
their children, though thi children doe not obey hit call. Yea fur-
ther (because here are not yctienfcs enough ) you proceed
and fay, If by thtfromife to them and thiir children^ be meant of
outtpard Cherch-frrviledges j then the fenfe muft bee, If yon
win beUeve^repent and Be bjptizMd^ ft hen ym and your children
jhall btha^izjtd. Yet another ftnfc you make out of that
which I ipakc (at the by) of Z^cib^w/, L«% 1 9. that Salva-
tion came to his houle upon his belceving 5 that thence
m^yhe'gdXhtYtdi^l hat the meaning is ^ a mans whole houfhold
may be faved barfly hy his heleeving : and not content with
;dl thcfefcnfo^ you ftcp out of your way to bring in Mr.

R 5 Goodwins

ji6 InfAHt-Baptifme proved fr$]n Scripture.

Gjodiv'vu interpretation of Zjcheus^ that he meant it nf tbe
rrbole hjufioid-^ and that thence he collef^ed that an houfe-
holdwdS Ecclefiaprirru y which you conflite, and then you
Tec down your own fenle of lalvation coninihig to Zjchetkt
Jii^honji j that by Zacheud bis hmje is meuni o?ie!y Zacheus
himjelf*

What multiplicity of imaginary lenfes, and confcquen-

ces of fences are here poured out on an heape? could the

rareft Chymick have extrafted any more? The Reader

would hardly iwallowdowne the tedioulnefTe of my dil-

coui le 3 if I fuould take them all Ungly, and lliew what I

own or reject of each of them : It is better to lit down the

plaine Icnfe together^ and make ic goodi and then he v. ill

difcern how you have indeavourcd to cloud an argument^

and wrangle againlt it , when you cannot aniwer it. I

Tli: pl.iinc plainly exprelTed the Apoftles argument to be fetched from

fenfcSci'copc the beneht, which Would not oncly come to themlelves,

of fhis argil - but to their children by their beleevjng in ChriO: *, and aP

n>em opened ter added, that the cleare ftrenath of the Argument lay

and vindicatca, , /-- j l i i 1 1 • r^ ^;

* tnus3 Crodnatnnowremembredhis Covenant to AUrj"

^ bar/i^iw lending that blelled (a^d in whom hce promifed
^ to be the God ot him and of his Iced; doe not ycu by
^ your unbeliefedeprive your lei vcs and your pofterity of
*^ ib excellent a gift; In which paiFage you acknowledge I
bjut hit the mar h^^axid given tb.it very irjtirpntatbn rvblch yon
orvne. And whe^reas you adde as afurther illuftratio n_, that
th.epromile is nowfultiiied to them and their children, ac-
cording to ^^cl/ 3. 25. IC e arethe children of the fre-phets^and
cf theCjVinaiit^ whicbGod nude niib our fjthirs^&c, Icou-
leiTe that is true, but not alltliat is meant-^ and yet even
that Irrengthens my Argument, theCovenant which God
made with their Fathers 3 Tl^jt bee rvdnld hee tbt God of themy
and 0} their feed^ and tbej n?ire the children or heires of that Co-
ven27?t'^ that look as God was the God of Abraham a,nd his
iccdj fo he would be the God of them and of their feed, if
they did beleeve and were baptized;and therefore he would
not have them by their unbelief deprive theniTelves and
their children of that priviledg^:this I then made my argu-
ment.

Infant'BaptiJme f roved frem Scripture. 1-27

ment, and this you fav/ well enough^ afid therefore fay,
that this expreflion, doe not by your Htiheliefe deprive your pojie-
rity cffo txcelknt a gift ^ hjith a little re Up of my interpretation
ef the promife concern ing the natur all feed of beleevers. But Sir,
why doc you call it a little reliih ? it is the very fcope of
my Argument, that look as God did when hce made the
promise of grace in Chrift to Ahraham upon his beleeving,
and took alfo hispofterity^/^o/e that vpert borne ef him^ into
Covenant with him, in the fenfe which I before alledged;
and not onely the naturall Jews, but even among all Nati-
ons, whoever became followers of Abrahams ^^itk^ did in-
herit Abrahams promise, That he ypouldbe the Godof them and
their feed; and by vertue of that promife, their children
were taken into vifible conamunion: Co this bleded feed
[in whom this promife was founded] being now come,
would according as heretofore,make it good to alj whether
Jewes or Gentiles, that fhould beleeve in him.

This claufe of the Covenant of grace, and the interpre-
tation of it, viz. That it belongs to all believers, and that
by vertue of it their children are to be received into vifible
communion, you often difputc againft, and fometimes fay
that it was a promife pecitliar to Abraham at other times, it
wastf/ tht Htmoji to be extended no further then to Abraham,
rfaacj, ani^ J^icoh^tobave their pojierity (as born of them)to
belong to the vifible Church, though in this place where it
was moft proper, you fay little or nothing abo^it it, onely
make wrangling exceptions againft my interpretation? but
becaufe it moft pertinent to the bafinefle in hand, I fliall
here take it into confideration, and manifeft that it was
not zptrfenallipvmkdge to Abraham*, no nor to Abraham^ /- lytn^^I^vJ^jl^
faac and Jutcob^ to have their pofterity taken into Covenant rhy^GocUnd
by vertue of that promife, 1 will^e the God of thee and thy fhc God of rhy
feed fccd,norpc-

For firft^ though Abraham was the father of the faith- h7rl!lte and '
fullj and fo in fome fenfe [the root, as you eliewhcre call Jaa>'b, proved
him:] yet the Covenant was made with him for bis faiths' by three Ar-
/i%3 and ^/t<?z^^er/ are his children and heires, and partake g"'"^'^ s.
of thofe priviledges and promifes which were made to

T him:

g Infant'BaftifmefrevtdfromScrifture.

him: and therefore look as Jhrahami faith juftificd him be-
fore God^Sc gave him intcrcft in theipirkuall graces of the
Covenantjand nom bnt himfelfi yet it was fo bencficiall and
advantageous to his children^ that for his fake they (hoiild
be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and houlholdj
and partake of the externall priviledges of itj and thereby
be trained up under the dilciplinc of it^ and fo bee fitted for
fpirituall priviledges and graces which God doth ordina-
rily confer upon theniwho are thus trained up; fo fhallic
bee with them who become followers o^ Abrahams faith.
Secondly, had it been a peculiar priviledge to kbrabams
naturall feed, Profelytes of other Nations could never by
vertuf of their becomming followers oi Abrahams faith.have
brought their children into Covenant with them, fo as to
have a vifible Church-mcmberfhip, as wfee know they did.
Thirdly, and weknow alfo that this promife of being
the God of belcevers and their feed, was frequently renew-
ed many hundred yeers after Abraham:,IfaaCy^nd Jacob were
Dcut.3o.«. dead and rotten, asZ^e«/. 30. 6. The Lord wiU circumcife thy
Efa-44-^>v heart^a?id the heart of thy feed^ &c. fo E/^. 44, 2,^. Feare
not 0 Jacob mj fervant^ and thou Jefhurun whom I have
chofm-y 1 will poure mj fpirit upon thy feed^ and my bkffing
fspon thine (^ff-Jpring^ and they JhaU fpring up as among the
Efa.5p, 21. grajfe^&c. So likewife E/ay 5p.2i As for me this U my Govt-
nant with t hem ^faith the Lord^my Spirit that if upon tkcy and my
, wdrds^ p[?hichl have put in thy mouthy /ball not depart out ef thy
moHthynor out of the mouth of thy feed^ nor oh t of the mouth of
thy feeds feeds Jaiih the Lor d^ from Inncefrth and for evcr^ and
this laii promifeyour fdk acknowledge, page 5 4. to bee
intended chietiy of the nation of the Jewcs at their laft
calling in : and whereas you iife to elude theie Texts by
yindi<a^cd.*^ %i^g ^be(c: things belong onely to the elcft, when they
come to beleeve, and reach not to any priviledge which is
externall? I reply, by the fame anfwer you might cut off
the . (ecd of Aibraham^ Ifaac and Jacobs for to bclecvcrs
/teaswell as to belcevers mrpwere theic promifcs made j
andlfh^llAiJefireyou, to thinke how by this Anf\vcr you
will avoyd that which page 42. 1 you call aWiirditie and

trifling

infani'Bapufme proved fr^m Scripture. 1 79

trifling in Mr. Cotton,Fov Inftanccj God made this promift
(iiyyovi) to Ahrskt^m^lfaac SLud Jacob ^ to bee the God of
them and of their feed, in all generations; fee how you will
anfwer your ov/nc ob;e£lion , if it bee iindcr|lood ?/»/-
Z'trfall) t9 all bps jkd^ that is rnani/eftljfalfe, all hi^ jeed bad not
God to be their Ood', or ifi( h'^ meant Conditionally^ if tha bt-
/eiVe^ then the meaning mufl bee^ that God rvautd bti the Godoj
Air ah am and bU feed if the) did btke've ; and th. n it fgnifes m
more then tbufy that GodmilbtcthcGudof cv^ry belecver^ and
then it is buttrifiing to adde^ to bee the God of him andoj bis
feed^ becaufe nothing is more cxprefj^d in tbi laft rv'ordf th. n
whatU faidin the firmer j therefore this promife made to
Abraham^lfaac2i\-\dJacoh^ muft bee retrained toe/e<5?and
hikevtrs oneljy net to the nit fir all feed of Abraham y Ifaac^ and
lacobybtfttobeleeverty at they and their feed bj calling: thus by
your owne Argument you cut off all the Jewes but fuch as
wereele^l and inwardly holy, as much as you doe the Gen-
tilcSj 'from having any vilible communion in externall pri-
vikdges. Confider what you will anfwer to thefe things,
I nothing feare but by what di(lin6tion you will fetch off
the Jcwcs, wee (hall fetch off the children of belecvtri^ whe-
ther Jewel or Gentiles, This I adde to make it more cleare,
that that promife, Gen^ 1 7* -^ ^i^^ bee the God of thee and oftby
Jeedy (^to which the A polUe here relates) is a Gofpell pro-
mife, which from age to age holds forth fbme benefits even
to the natural! feed of beleevers. So that when the Apo-
ftleprelfeththcmtobeleevein Chrifl, and by being bap-
tized to come under this new and befl: adminiflration of
the Covenant, by an Argument reaching to their pofleri-
tie; the fenfeis no more then thus, you have indeed cru-
cified the Lord of life, and deferve that his blood fhould
bee required of you and of your children, and that that
Vineyard (the heire whereof you have killed) fhould bee
taken away from you, but if yet you will receive him offe-
red to you in his Gofpell, it fhall not prove fb,but you
fhall receive the holy Ghofl, you fhall bee juiHfied, accep-
tedjyoufhall f^ill bee a chofen generation, the Church and
people of God, yea and your pofleritie fhall be under this

S bcfl

13^

Mr. Totnl^es hi
exceptions a-
gainft thisar-
gunienr anfvv*

I Exception.

r^fam-Baptifme frovedfrom Scripture.

beft adminiftrationj they (hall be accounted by vemie of
tills promifeftill tobeehis^ and be trained up for him^ iii
hisSchoole, in hishoufe, as heretofore they have becne,
yea and widi greater advantage, becaufc a greater abun*
dance of the fpirit is now poured and to bee poured out,Try
what abfurdities you can make to follow from this Ai'-
gument.

After I had opened the fcope of the Argument^ I procee-
ded to examine what exceptions are made againft it» Firft,
(bmc fay the promise here mentioned is meant of extraor-
dinary gifts ofthe holy Ghoft, this I confuted, in this you
Goncurre with mee» onely (that you might debafe as much
as is poffible what ever I goe about to prove) you adde,
my najons are not jujjicient to confute it^ for though aU who then
bileived and were iaptiz>fd did not receive thofe extraordinary
gifts ^ yet Feter might ajfure them that it fljimld Be fofor the future |
Anfmr* This deferves no reply ; is it imaginary that Pet^r might
promile what never was to bee performed ? was it to be true
at any time, that all who beleeve fhould receive the extra-
ordinary gifts of the holy Ghoft ? Your felfe % elfewhere,
you (hould incurrc blasphemy to challenge a promife which
God (hould not make good. And whereas you adde fur-
ther^ihat it doth not fiSon^ that th^ prmife mufl bee true in all
agesy that whoever Btkeves and is baptized^ fljalJ receive remijjir
»m offinneSi and the gift of the holy Ghofi s bcVauft there, w nothing
in the Text to prove that this promifepou/dhe in force in all ages.
But Sir is there not in the Text, all that are afar re of^even at
mary as the Lord our God fb all call -^ and doth not that reach
to all ages?

The other fhifi: which I faid was infufficient to a-
voyd the force of this Argument, is their interpretation
who Jay ^ Tojm and your cbildrtn^muji ^ee ihm limited^wiz, at
many oft hem as the Lord pall call ^ that is, when any of your
children come to bee caUedy this promise fhall bre made
good unto thcmj now I laid this was but a fhift, becaule
the Apoftles Argument is taken from the benefit which
Ihould come to their children, which would bee no Argu-
snentat^Ib becaufe j^^ith this limitation, it holds forth no

niore

a. Exception,

Ifffant'Bdftifme pr$vedfrom Scriptme. f ^ i

more to the children of heleeverjthcnto Vagans^ the promises
is made to as many as God (hall call^ that i%y to youy t9your
childrefi^and to PaganSy and their children as rmch as to you and
yotir children'^ what argument can this afford from a benefit
which their childrenjhould receive if they beleeved>

But this iay yon is thegertuine andneceff'jry explicaiion of the
Text^ for let the fromife bee pphat it can hec^ whether of fnving
graces^ of outvpard privikdgesy of extracrdifiary gifij^ it is no
wayet true withoHt that limitation^ as many as the Lord pall
call.

But this is but a deceiving of your Pvcader with an equivo- j^c^
Cation in the word call^ forifyou nieane o£ inward effe^tt all
Callings of true faith wrought in the hearty and then fay^,
what ever is meant by the promi/e, whether inward graces
or outward priviledges^ none partake of any of thefe things,
without this inward call: I mull tell you, this is one of the
things you ufe to call dilates ^ ^old ajjertions without proofe^
thefal/ehood whereof is abundantly manifeftedaIready:Do
you not know and grant that outward priviledges are com-
mon to ekd: and reprobate ? But if you meane it of out-
ward calling, then I not onely ajferty but have already
^r(7z;e«^their Infants in joy this calling with them. But be-
cause you cannot deny that the Apoltlc here meant to fetch ?• Exception,
an Ai'gumenttaken from the benefit which fliould come to
their children, you have found out another ji&i/>5 and fay,
the maine matter wot concerning themfelveJ to treEl them^ hccaufe
they hadfaid^His blood be upon us and upon our children^ and thi§
was a Comfortable Argument ^bkiCaufe they might hereby under fiand^
that notmthflanding ihis imprecation or execration^ they and
their children mi^t yet bee faved by this JefuA whom they had
erudfied^ i/tcajetbtfypouldbe/eeve inhim.

But I reply, firft, there is nothing in the Text to evince it, Anfw.
that all thefe men either uttered that curie, or were privlc
to it : for though Peter iaid they had crucified him, he meant
the Scribe J and Pharrfees had done ity and elicwhere hee (aics,
die Jen^es rtblzh di^elt at hrufakm h-id dene i/: it is moii ,
probable that many of thefe ftranger Jewes knew nothing
of it. Secondly, let it bee granttS that they both knew it

S 2 and

iga Jnfant'Bapifme proved from Scripture^

and were parties in it, and fo confequendy that the ap|^i-
cation of the promife was the more feafonable to them, yet
becaufe it was the promife of the Covenant^ which belonged
to every Covenanter, that God in Chrift would bee a God
to them and to their (ccd, and that hee prefled it to them
as to thofe who were children of the Covenant , AEls^
Chap« 3. Verfe 25. this Argument taken from the Cove-
nant had been of ufe, though that fpeech had never becne
uttered.

As for that which you call the witlefTe dcfcant I put up-
on my adverfaries, while I fay the Argument muft run thus^
that if the Apoftle nnifl: be interpreted, (as thefe men would
havehim^ to you and your children, fo many of them as
the Lord fhall call, viz^ you andyonr children have hitherto
heenanholjffeed. But now if you beleeve inChrifiyoptr felves^
your children jh all bee in n<) better condition then the refi of the Pa--
gan worlds hut if after ward any of them or any of the heathen fhall
believe and be baptized ^ their f articular per fans fl>all be tal^j jn-'
io CovenAnt^ hnt their Children ^ill left out^ this (faid I) would
not have been a very comfortable Argument to perfuvadt them to
comein^ ifi relation to the good nf their children. To this your
anfweriS) that thii rvitkffe defiant fillowej not on the applying
the refiridlion in the end ej the verfe^ to them^ their children^ and
all that are afarre off^ and thai which I burden my adverjaries Tc«
net with^of putting bileever J Infant J out if the Covenant into the
condition of Varans children is a Co:cyfme anfwered before. But
Sir, bee it witlefTe or witty, they muft owne it whofe it is,
and 1 perceive you can more eafily put it off with a fcoffe
then give it a folid arif%ver, and it is a thorne which will
not fb eaiily bee plucked out of your fide j the flrength
of it is, fe/tr could not have ufed this as an Argument to
perfwadethem to come under tF?is adminift ration of the
Covenant, whereof Baptiime was a ieale, from the bene-
fit which fhouldcomcto their children if your interpreta-
tion bee true, becaufe by tl-is heir children p^^^uld he in a worfe-
cendltion^ in relation io the Cozm^nt^ihen they trere hefere', all
grant in xht former they w:re included^you fay in this latter^
ypukm-;i>nomorepnmjefi,rthn9^henf'.Tibe ^hildrm ofTptrke/:

How

jfifum'BMftiffmfrweafrdmScnfture. Ijj

How Aen eould this argument be fit to be ufed? t^ me I pray
yoa, fiipjpofe a man held fonie Farm or Office under fome
great man, and that in his Grant or Patent^thcre were (bme
apparent priviledgQS or benefits included concerning his
pofterityjif now the Lord of whom hee held it^fhould offer
him a new Grant in which his children fhould beexprefTeJy
leftout, andnomore. priviledgcsforthemdten for meere
ftrangers^ could an Arjgument bee taken from the benefit
that{houldcometohisChildrcn,ta perfwadehim to give
up his former , and accept this latter Grant? I thinke not.
And whereas you call that expreflion of putting of the
children of bcleevers intothe famefrate with the children
ofTurks^* Coccjfme ivhichyoH have anfevered htfore. I pardon
your fcornfuU exprcflion^you doe but ^c^ar that which hitej
yoit , it is a truth which you have no caufe to delight to
heare of j you have anfwered it indeed, by granting the
truth of it) as the Reader may plainly fee in my Anfwer to
your io Section of the fecondPartj and to Seft. 3.of this
part.

Whereas I further ftid in my Sermon, except in reldtim to
the Covenant^ there rp4s no occafion to name their children:, ilhaei
httnfmfficienttoljavtfaid a promifi is made to Of many st the
Lord fballcalI,Youanfwer^T heir children indeed are named in
relation to the Covenant: But there mds another reafon thin that
which I alledge '^ not onely their imprecation ^^ Matth. ij.'S^*
hnt ejpeeially hcaftfiChrift was firfi fefit to the feivj and their
children^ aUs 3.26. I Pveply,, .but this realbn which you
allcdge affords no Argument for them now, tobeleeve and
repent from any benefit Ihould come to their pofterity by
Ycrtue of that promiie, 1 mU bee tbpGody and the God of' thy

To do&'this Se^on, you fay, Tht AMp^idoh4ptifis hwih
htnce a good Argument againfi baptizing of IirfantJ^ becaufe Vg-^
tcv required of fiicb as were in Covenant repentance brfere bafp^
tifme, I anfwer, juft as good an one, as becaufe Abraham
Was in Covenant, and an a^iiiall beleever, and juftified by
the faith be had in ancirciimcifion, and received it as a feaJ
of the righteoufnefle of faith j therefore all thcfc muft go

S 3 before

I j4 Infam'Bdfti[mepr6vedfr$m Scriptural

before Circumcifi on; and becaufe all who turned Profe-
lytes to the Jews> muft firft make profedion of their faith;
therefore none may bee circnmcilcdbutfiichastheyare.
But more of this when we confider this Argument in your
Exercitation.

r» $e^. 7. Next, let us try whether your fuccefle bee any better a-

gainft the next Text of Scripture which I brought to prove
Rom. 1 1. 6 &c. this Conclufioni viz, Rom, 1 1. 1 6. &c. where I faid. The
vindicated, j^pofiles fcope vip^ to ^tw that we GcHtilcf have now the fame
graffingintothe trueOiivePPhicb the Jerpes formerly had'^ and
our prefent graffing in U anjmrabk to their prejent cafling oui'^
and their taking in at the latter end of the World ^ fiatl bet
the fame graffing in [though more glorioujl/] as mrs is nerpj and
it is apparent that at their firft graffing in^ they jtnd their chi'.dnn
were tal{en in-y at their c aft ingmt thy and their children were
hrok^ off\ and when they fballhe taken in again at the end' of the
VPorld^they[and their children jh all be taken in together'^ and all
this by zertPte cf the Covenant^ Ero Deus tuus, &c. Which is
the fame to tts and to them^ we and they making up the Church of
God.

Inyour£A?^»K» of this Argument you flill proceed in
y our <?/^ method- firft to caftfcorne upon it) as fuch an
obfcurc Argument, That none but a Diver ef Delos can fetch
up thi meaning of it : and indeedj ftioiild you not pretend
difficulties, you could have no colour to bring in fo many
imaginary fenfes, thereby to darken an Argiiment , which
is thefccond branch of your Artifice: ^s whether this in-
graffing he meant of the vijibky or invipbk Churchy by faith ^ or
profeftion of faith certain jby reason ofeleBion^or Covenant of grace
made to them^ or probable and likely^ becaufe for the mo ft part it
happens fo^ &c. Alas Sir^ why doe you thus ftrip your felfe
to dive under the water ^ when the (enie fwims upon the
top: Look how the Jewes were Gods pe ople j fo are the
Churches of the Gentiles 5 looke how the Jewes children
were graifed in^fo are our children;we are taken in^in ftead
of them who were caft out, and become one vifible king-
dom of Chrift with the reA of them who kept their ftati-

on;

^^:

InfMif'BdptiJtm fr$vedf/$m Scriftur€. 1 3 j

on; this is the plaiiie fen/e of my Argument. Now if
youpleafebutto apply all your imaginary fenfes to the'
Jews and their children, and/ay, if they and their chil-
dren were graffed in together, was it into the vifible, or in-
vifible Church > was it by faith, or the profeffion of faitW
was it certain or probaole? Doe you not thinke your
Reader would fniile at the vanity of thefe quelnons^

When you have fet downe your fences 3 next you thus
proceed, the thing that Is to be proved is. That all the in-
fants of tvtry bde^ver are in the Covenant of Free grace in
Ckrifly andhj venue thereof to bee baptized into the Communt-
of the vifible Churchy No Sir, the thing to bee proved froni
this Text, is. That o«rzz7/^»// have the fame right rp-hlch thz
infants of the Jews had^ and your Arguments fight againft the
Infants of the Jcws^ as much as againft the Infants of the
Gentiles j for [to apply your own words fpoken of be^-
leevers now, to the Jewesthen,^ Though it may bee
granted that the infants of the Jeivs vpere for the mofi part un-
der the ele&im and-CsVenant of gra€e^ and fo in the vifibh
Church ytt it rvill not follopp that every infant o[ a J«i9?, i»
Of much Of hee^thc child of a Jen^^ or a hekever^ ii imder the
Covenant of grace ^becauje rve have Gods exprejfe declaration to
the contrary^Kom, 9. 6, 7, 8» and all experience proves the
contrary; is not this as much againft the one as the other >

Towhatlfaid, the Jewes Infants were graffed in by
Circumciuon-thereforeoursarctobe ingraflTedin by Bap-
tifrne. You an(wer, by demanding n>hether ingood. fadnejfe I
doe thinke ibe Ap (file here nkanej by graffing i»j baptizing ur
Oircttmcifion^ or incifion by outward Ordinances -^ for if that
Were the meanings then breaking off mufi be meant ofuncircumci-
fing or mbaptizing. To which I reply, that in good fober
fadneflel do think that grrffing in isadmiffion into vifible
mcmberfhip, or viible communion with the Church of
Chii't; and that theext mall icale of their vifible graffing
in WasCircHmcifiiyrK an i of ours B rptifme ; and yet it fol-
lows a ot J that breaking off is onely unciraioicifing , or
unbaptlzi »?;; but breaking o5f is a C-^i^ing out from that
vifible m*:0\b?r'^:up whereof this Sacrament is a Symbole.

E4lt.

j^^ fnfanUBapifpit frdvedfrom Scriptnrt.

But to yon it fccms that wgrafing here,if meant of the inviji*
hie Church &y sleftion and faith: I Reply, if It be meant of the
invifibie Church onely 5 and that all who ai'e grafted in, in
the Apoftlesfenlca whether Jews or Gentiles^ are onely e-
le(^ones 5 I will fblemnly promife you never to plead this
Scripture morcj for any Infants, either of Jews or Gen-
tiles^ no nor for vifible Profeffors of cither of them^ pro-
vided onely if you cannot make that good , you will [ as
indeed you muft] yeeidthatfbmearetobe reputed viiible
Church-members^though not eleft, whether Jews or ©en-
tiles, and that our grarang in , is as theh's was , they and
theirchildren,weand our children 5 andif youpleale, let
us a little try it out. The Text is plaine, fome of the bran-
ches were broken off, fiich branches whofe naturall grow-
ing in the Olive yeelded them that privilcdge which they
now partake of who aregraffed in in their ftead^ were thcle
broken ^ff from the invifibie Church ? you dare not fay
fo: if then the Olive from which they were broken off, bee
the vifible Church, I have enough j and I wonder that any
but an Armmia?2fi\ould make any queflion that the Apoftle
ipcaks onely of rejefting the Nation of the Jewes from
being the vifible Church, and taking the body of the Gen-
tiles in their ftead, to be Gods vifible Kingdom • in that it
is meant of fuch an ingraffing as maybe broken off which
cannot bee from the invifibie Church. But Ictus fee how
you feek to evade this, and how you prove that it muft bee
meant of the in vifible Church: hhraham (fay you) had a
adoHbk capacity^ omof a naiur all Fatherland anoilxr the fa-
iher of the faithful/ ; in refpe& of the former capacity^ feme are
called branches according to nature-^ otlms rvildc O'ives by na-
iure^yet graffed in hy faith : and n>hfn it is faid that fome of the
naturall brmches n^re hrol^n cjf^ the meaning if not^ thai fome of
the branches of the invifihh Church may he broken off.^ but onely
fucb OA T^erefo in appearance^ according ai our Saviour exprejfes
it Joh. 15.2. But I Reply, I profefft I underftand not how
thisdiftin^^ion gives you the leaft helpe^ for tell me I pray
you,were nottheie whom you cal naturall branches as tru-
ly ill the Olive as they who being wilde by nature were yet

grsiffed

TnfdnUBi^tlfme proved fr^m Scripture. rj y

graffed in^in the (lead of them who were b/oke off? If they
were, how doth this diftiiK^ion help you? You fay indeed,
Yhat the Infants of kkevingjeivej were net in the Covenant of
grace^ becaufe thy rvere iheir children : if by thh you meand^'
they were not members of the inviiible Church ,' you fay
the truthj but nothing to the pnrpofe. But if your mea-
ning bcj that they had not a vifible membtrlhip/uch an m-
graiting as gave them a right to outward Ordinances 5 you
notonelycontradid the Scripture, but your ielk:, who
plead this. That it wai a piculiar pivikdge u Abraham, th^t
his children fhiuld have fnh a vifihle patidi?2g as ours have UQt :
plainly,the Jcwes were the natural! braneheSjfome of them
were ele6l:3fome notj the body of them were the branches
ipoke of in this place; many of thefe were broke off, o-
thcrs of them kept their ftation ; yet Gods eleffcion failci
not; even (b is i t now, the Gentiles were graffed in, that is,
their vifible faith gaye them a vifible iagraffing,their invifi-
blc faith gave them (who have it) an invifiblc member-
(hip: yea, ro me your felfefeemto fay as much, when pag.
6^. you affirme,fwri/io» may he either im& thi vifible or invifi-
bkChitrch', grjffngin^maj he either by faith ^ or profejften of
faith* And pag. 65. It is true that our prefent gr offing in^ is
anfivera(fleto[or rather for tlmf\cafiing out ^ that ii^Godrpould
f»fply in his Olive tree the Churchy the casing away of the leivr
by the calling of the Gentiles-^ fo much the Apofile Jaith^ ver. 17.
thou being a ivilde Olive ywe?t graffed iny in ramorum defra-
ftorum locum, w/o the place of the brtmches broken off^tfyeu mean
it in this fenfe( fay you)I grant it.And truly Sir.in thefc word*>
to my underftanding, you grant not onely my interpreta-
tion of this place, but even the queftion controverted be-
twixt us. Firftjyou grant my interpretation, that it is not
meant of the invifible, but the vifible Church : for I know
you will not fay that any of the eleft Jewcs were broken
''off, and the Gentiles ele^ed and put into their place. It
muft therefore be meant of the vifible, and of the vifible
Church of the New Teftamentj and that thofe Jewes who
kept their ftation, and we who are in the roome of thofe
that weubroke off^ doe make that Olive which die Jewes

T cude

, 2 g Ipfdpt-Baptijme f roved frm Scripture.

made before* Yea Secondly, you by neceflary coniequcnce
grant, that our chUdren are taken in as theirs were, wc are
graffed in, in ramorum defraSomm htnm-^ Wit fitpplj in ibi
Olive trei ibc Churchy the casing away of the Jfrps. Now if wc
thus fuppfyy our children ftjpply the place of their children
which were broken off 3 and befide^we are one with the reft
of the Jews who remained in this Olive; and their remai-
ning in the Olive, did not (I hope) deprive them of that
priviledge which before-times they had for their children,
and therefore wcmuft have the fame with themjand a grea«
ter then they had for their children, none of us ever plea-
dedj though ours be clearer, and a greater meafiireof grace
accompanying it.

Yougoeon, andiay, n>hen feme of the naturaU branches

were cHt off^ it if not minnt any otbermje then our Savisur Chrift

Joh 15.2. m^J/je/, Joh. 15. a. Every branch in me nut beafing fruit hee

proves the in- takeJaa>^'^ ibnisy not that any branch truly in him could bee

tcrprctation ^o fruitkjJe,ortakenarvayyhHi07iely thofi branches which rrere Jo

^ ^''^^' in appearance, I reply, that this is my very meaning, that

this ilanding as branches of the Olive, is not to be limited

to the inviiible, but takes in the vilible al/b^ not retrained

to fiich as have a ipirituall union with Chrift by faith , but

takes in al(b the external] profeffion of faith, which oh

times is not in truth, that which it appears to be.

^ beredisy on (iiy^ the hpoftles fcope in therphok chapter it
$0 anftfer that quafiion • Hath Godcafl away his peopUy&c, and
not to jherp that wpee have n9vp the fame ^raffing into the trite
Olhenfhich the Jen^s firmer Ijf bad. I aniwer, I undertook not
^o Anali 2e the whole Chapter, but to open the fcope of that
matter or argument which begins at the I6ver. and that
you cannot gainfay, but that there the Apoftle makes an
ArgLinientfrom our graffing in in their ilead. Andyou
mindi me alfo of my onme difiin&ion of the fetbflance of the O-
venmti andthe adminiftrationrf it. Sir, I thankyoufor re-
membdng me of it, it is of very good ufe in this place^.
though not of that ufe which you bring it for, we have the
fame Covenant with them for the fiibitance^which Covenant
^onliflsof^iefameblcffin^s, and is applyabfc upon the

iame conditions, belongs to the fame forts of perfons, but
the adminifiration of it> is dean differing from their§. Yfqu
grant, That by faith tvee partal^e ef the fubfiance of the Cove*
nant^inreffeU^of n^hich^ allbekeving Gentiles are AbvahsLXm
feed. Yea, and you may adde, vifible beleevers are his vifi*
ble feed : But if you mean U (fzy yoii)^/ the outward admini-
ftration of this ingraffing by Circumctfiori^ Baptifme^ &c, nothing
is more falfe^ the oHtppard adminifiration is utterly taken away^
aad to affirme that it is not , vptre to evacuate the blood of Chrifi
in ibis particular. But Sir, this is at the befi but cunning
dealing, and in part, a confident falfe affertioa ; it is cun-
ning to fay by Circumcifion,Baptifme, Sec as if both thefe
belonged to one adminiftration. Indeed to afiirme that
ingraffing into the vilible Church, (hould now bee by Cir-
cumcifion, were to evacuate the death of Chrifl: in that
particular but to (ay [as you ought, if you would fpeake
plainly] that to have our initiation now by Baptiiine into
t he viiible Church, as formerly by Circumciiioiij or to (ay
that all outward adminiflrations of the Covenant are now
utterly taken away, [though the old one is vanifliedjis not
onely a confident, but a falle affertion, and if you fay no€
this, you apply my dlftinftion to no purpbfe.

You goe on, whereas I iaid their taking in in the tndofth^
World rvilbe as mrSythey and their children',yoii grant thit is true^
If it be true^ that their children by being the children of be-
leevers (hal be accounted to belong to the Church^you grant
my Argument J ifyoumeanenotfo, but think that at their
lall and beft reflauration, their children (hal not enjoy tliat
priviledge which they had when they were Gods people be*
fore, why doe you not (ay fo 3 that all the world mayiec
that you think in their beft condition they (hall bee depri-
ved of that glorious priviledge which they enjoyed in their
non-age? and yet you grant, Ihat they and tlmr children
jbaEbee takffi in^y^a and a morefuU taking in of the children rf
the Jews^ then it mrv of the Gentiks^ according to thaty Rom.
11.2^. And fo all Ifratl jhaU h faved. But ((ay you) aS
thit proves noty that God would have either all Infants ofbeke"
vtrSf oomtudbis at eUU perfons ^ or in the Covenant of g^acz mi

T % Chrifi

140 JnfanuBAplfmejrovedfrom Seriptftrc.

Chrifiy or in the face of the vifihk Church admiiudto Baptifme,
I anfwer, the thing to be proved was , our Infants have
the fame privilcdge with theirs.and that it proves abundant-
lyj as for election 5 wee are not tocfteem all vifible mem-
bers,, whether Infants or grown men, to bee ele<^ed , God
having declared the contiary, this being true in all ages of
the C hu ; ch , A<fany are called^ and hut fin? chofen. N otwith*
Handing, when we /peak of particulars, ivee have the fame
ground of charitable hope for one as for another. As for
your other exprellion, That this proves not that ihc^ are to bee
looked upon at vijibk members 9f the Ohurch^ and to be admitted
k) omward Ordinances-^ this is oncly to deny the Conclufion,
whether this being proved, that our Infants have the fame
right to bee reckoned to the Church of God, as well as the
Inknts c f the Jews, be not a juft ground, and as good a
foundation to prove, that therefore they mult bee ad-
mitted to that Ordinance which is the initiall fealej (hall
in due timeappeare, when I have made good the next con-
dufion, That Baptifme fucceeds in the roome of circumcifion
to that «/e; in the meane time let the Reader j-udge.

I iiirther faid of the Jews, they fiall by vertue of Gods Co-
%'€na23t hse takfin in againe in the end of the world^ becaufe the
root is holj^ becaufe Gods covenant with Abraham, Ifaae, and
Jzcoh exiendsjet to them^ and pai againe bloffomCy and mU
taki flace^ when the Nations nrhleefi fhaU bee taken aTPay , and
theirprefentnationaJI c0?:-dition I padorred out in the compari"
fonof Nebuchadnc22ars dreame^ Van, 4.I4. of a tree that was
cut doWae^ and tU root hound rviih an iron chaine^ and yet afters*
ward did grow again. The thing it felf you deny not^ nor go
about to anfwer my argument drawn from the Jewes^ viz»
We, as they, were taken in 5 tliey, and ther/ children ft>all be
at the lafc taken in againe , as they were atthe firft t and
therefore we and thev making up the fame body, are taken
ifi upon the fame ground, our children with us , as "wtW as
theirs with them: this Argument (I fay) you go not about
to anlwer,bnt in ftead of anfwering,you pick^qnarreliagainfi
my comparijon tah^n from Nebuchadne22ars dreame. Why
Sir^ I never thought a Scholar would have expelled a com *

pari&a

Infam^B^tifmefrivc^ from Serif tme. 141

paiifon {houldrunne upon foure feet 5 nor Have wrefted it
beyond what was intended by it, I never intended to make
Neif ttcbadne^f^nr J drcsLme an argument to prove, butoncly
toilluftrate, that as that tree for a while was cut downe,
and the root bound with an Iron chaine, was kept from
growing, yetin the end the chainc was removed, and the
tree grew againe ; fo the nation of the Jewe5 was for a
while caft ofF/rom being the people of God^during the time
of their blindnefle and unbekefe, but in the end thcvaile
fiiould be removed, and their nation taken into their for-
mer Church-iianding, yea and moreglorfouflyj and that
by reafon of the Covenant , But from this yc u feeke to-
draw many aWiirdities, and to Ihew wherein my compari-
(bn holds not j asthiftreeii mt cut don>ne of thatfpjs^ omly
form branches broken off^ and that to muh^ Abraham tke rootyto
hie ^9iindwith a chAne is unbandfome , and tliat in this allu-
fion, / fomttimes maJ^e Abraham the roote^ fometimei the Co*
■ ii'nant the roet^&c. all which are worthy of no aniwer ; no*
thing being held out in the allufion but what I now faid, nc
vertheleffe, were it pertinent to our controverfie it might
eafily enough be (hewed, how in a found /enfe the Cove-
nant is the root upon which Abraham and all the reft of the
branches grow, ainl alfb how by vertne of the Covenant-*
Abi^abam is al(b a root from which his feed grow,yea; and
Overall beleevers are roots from wlilch their pofteritle
springs, and how in one found fenfe Ahaham^ Ifaac and la-
cob^^nd all vifible beleevers make up this one tre«|thts Olive,
and yet in another fcnfe] ths j are all but branches of this
Olive.

Whereas I faid tnaltihlf difcfttrfe^ the hoHmjfe efihe bran--
chesthae/p0^of^ is mt meant of a perfonall inherent hoUnejJc^
hnt an holinejfe derived to them from their Aneefiffrfj afedcrall
bolinejfe, Againft this you except many things. Firft, Mr,
Goodwin expounds it otherrpifti 'i M\\ Goodtvin meane thar
there is no other holines whidi may make men eftcemed (6
in facie dei according to Kom, 2.»//. I concur with him,but if
he fay there is no other hoi inefle^or that the profeilion of
^K)iincflc may not make him pafTc as holy m facie vifibili^Ec^

T 3 fflifijS:

142

InUnt'tdftifme froudfrm Saipture.

c^jJafjwhen I heare him fay {o (as yet I never did) I (hall
diflcnc from him though hce be my loving friend. Second-

ly, fay yovL^here are divers thingj to- ife marked indeed^ hut rsfith
an J?eliske : indeed Sir that brand is alwayes ready at your
handj let us fee whether you have let it juftly or no in this
Derivative and pi^^e, and whether your impartial Reader will not take
^cStop'" icoffandfet it upon your felfe. 1 epppfe (f^yyoM) perfmall
"^j^ inherent holimjfe^ to derivative hoUmffe ai imonfiftent: but Rea-

der looke into my Sermon^ and fee whether I did Co or no;
I confidently deny this charge^ I onely (hewed the meaning
of the word in thUflace to bee of derivative holinefle com-
mon to the whole nation^not excluding perfonali inherent
liolinelTe in true beleevers among them j andl fay agaiujthe
whole nation was called bolj:^ not perfonally inherent, but
federally^ and you acknowledge here a derivative holineCIe
from Ahraham as a ipirituall father, yet I fuppole you will
notundertaketo juftifie that true inherent holinefle is de-
rived from any, but from our Lord Jefus Chrift, and his
holy^irit. Next fay you, tb^ hslinejje ii derived not from
any Ancejlers^ hut onelj from Abraham, But I befeech you ift
your next not onely todi6late this, as in this booke you
doe very often ; but cleare and prove it by forac good ar-
guments, why it does not defcend from other immediate
parents, who are beleevers, as "well as originally from Abra-*
ham", for parents who are branches from Ahraham their
father, areyetrootes to their children who ipring from
themj Doe wee not read of the root efLjfe^ Efay 1 1? though
heewasbuta branch from Abraham^ might not every pa-
rent among the Jewes, at leaft every beleeving parent apply
that promife made to Abraham^ I mil bee the Godofthee^and
thyfeed> if you thinkc hee may not, diforovc the Argu-
ments which I have brought for it, in anuver to your Sxt
Scftion. I demand fuither, was not fiich a holineffe derived
from Ahraham to his naturall feed, orpofteritie, where all
■ ^ Abrahams pofteritie, who are called the holy fced^ true he-
r cs^^rc^oots havers ^ and inwardly hnly> No ( fay you') othtr parents are not
rarhcit chil- roots ^ Abraham onfl) if an holy roofey or at the mofl^ Abraham^
drcn. Ifaacy and Jacob^ in vfkofc names the Covenant runs* T# which

l^fdm-S/fftifmef rived from Scrlftmre. i ^ j

Ireply^firftathisisto fay and xaiCzyh Ahr^am onely is an
holy roote^ yet Ifaac and lacoB arc holy roots too. Second-
lya the ApoftJc names none of them at aH but fpeakcs of tbt
fatherj^v/hich includes all their Anc€ftors,at leaft more then
Ahraham oncly. Thirdly, how often did God (as I fhew-
cd before) renew that promife, I will bee the God of thee
and of thy feed, after Abraham^ Ifajc and lacolf were all
dead? Fourthly, your felffay, the body of beleevers is
compared to the Olive tree, and each beleever to a branchy
andtherL> fur e Abraham^ Ifaac 2ind lacohomly^^are not the
root or tree which bare the branches, but the body of be-
leevers is the tree, and fo (by your owne grant) it folio wes,
beleevers in one ferife are the tree, in another tiie branches.
I%ly5ladde,that the body of beleevers, who make this
Olive tree and branches, /nuft neceflarily be underftood of
v/^^/eprofeiTors, and not retrained or limited to /rw be-
leevers onely, othcrwife the branches could not have been
broken ofi^as is aforefaid.

Next you ftcp out of your way, to reproach Mr. Tkjmof Us.Gscdmn
4j00dmn:^Xvho(fayyouyindeav(n'edtoinfirreaklKd ofpromife Vmdicated.
cf deriving holimjfefr^m beleevers id their pofieritie out ofihefi^
militudi rf anOtivt^ and its branches ^compared with Tfal, 128,
3 .&c. And then yon vilifie him,as a man who by [pinning
tut findlisndes aud^mje&Hrts^ deludes his Anditery with fuch
things y rather then fatis fie them xpith arguments : what hi«
difcourfe was, you fct not downc, nor in what fenfe he al-
Icdgedholinefletobe derived from beleeving parents to
their pofterity,but why lflceJ/??«^/y our iword (hould bee
thus againft every man, I cannot t«ll? as for Mr. G^wdivin
(notwithftanding his difference from me in fbme paints of
Chorch-govcrnment) I can doe no leffe then teftiJie that I
know him to be a Learned godly Divine, and an eminent
Preacher of the Gofpel of Chrift, and his worth not to be
Wafted by your j[cornfullQ)cech. and for the things you
alledge againft him, he aflures mce, ICoh have Jet dowm his
notions in jour Book^ sthtrmje then hi f reached thtnty and that
in due iimehee intends to pubUfb his Sermons^ and then the
world (ball fee whether you have done him right or
not. jUftljb,

1 4^ Ififant-Baftifrnt frevedfrom Scriptnrt.

ChiMrcn fol - Laftljj to that which I aflerted, 7bM the Irfants both of

ding ;
norofhlijufikeiyou upon this demand whether I da not in this
Jjmbolize with Kvmimm^vpho mak^s thif the caufiwhythepojie--
ritj of fome people b.zvenot the gofpeljbccaufe thJ^ forefathers rtfu-*
Mr Tombes fi^ /Vjand yoiibnng in the learned Do6lor Twiffe^and Mou- ,
fy mbolizmg lin dtfputing againji him in that point. How faine would you
with Arminm fay feme what which might reproach this Argument? But
his cxpoim- jj^^y j^Q|. |3Qt-|-^ thefc things be trucj that God (hews mercy to
ng ^'"'^i* ^j^om he pleafes, and hardens whom he pi eafes^ and yet
(hews mercies to thoufands of generations that feare him>
and viiit the fins of parents upon their children ? may wee
not lay truly when God caft out the nation of the Jewes
from being his people^ that for their fins he gave the Bill of
Divorce to them and to their children, that they (hould no
longer be his people in Covenant, as they were in time
paft, and yet his grace remain free> I fpake expreflely of
outward adminiiiration of the Covenant, That when Pa-
rents are taken into Covenant, their children alfo with
them have a vifible right, and when God gives a bill of di-
vorce from a viiible Church franding, (for to true belce-
vers hee never gives any) their children are caft out with
them^as appeares in the Jewes at this day h is this to fymbo-
life with ArminiM^ ordoth Do6lor Trpijje or Moulifj^ or
any otlier of our Orthodox writers gainefay this? I appeale
to every learned Reader to judge , But e regione^ I defire you
to (hew how you will zyoydfymholMng with the ArminianSy
who indeavor to prove falling away from true grace and
holineffe,fi'omthis i !• of the Romanf^ becaule the branches
were broken off, when you with them faj, the graffing into
the Olive here is meant of true beleevers graffed into the in-
vilible Churchy yet of the branches growing in, or graffed
into this Olive, it is exprefly f^idfome rvere broken rj^j and
otliers will fare no better if they beleeve not. Bert us in his
relation oj the conference at the Hague ^ urges this very place ^ f(t
frofiie that it is f^Jj' blefor the Saints to fall Mfa^ from irace, hf^

caufe

InfM'Baptifme pnvtdfrom Scrifmri. j^^

cjufe we are advlfed to tak^ t^jming hj the J^wts 'EfXmfU^ tt^kt^
were hol^n off for tbtir unbeUeft . I know that you thiofee not
that true beleevers may fall away, but how you wiUavpid
the Arguaicntjinterpreting this place as you doe^ Iprofelle
I cannot tell.

And now I leave it to. every judicious Reader, wheth<e
you or I havcdarkned this Scripture, whether you in fay-
ing this Text, is meant of the mvifible Church otitly^ and the
graSin^'m IS by ek^Kn and faith^ or I who fay the rejeding
is of the Jewes from being of thi vipbk Churchy and i/igrai-
fing is meant of the taking in of the Churches of the Gen-
tiles to bee the vifibUChnrehj kingdomcj and people Qf God
in their roomes 5 whether (in a word) I who interpret ic
of ftich a growing ia the Olive, or ingraffing into ky as
may endure a breaking off, and yet none fall from laving
grace who once had it, or you who mafee fiich a grafting
Jn, as that if any branches bee broken off, k mult ne^ffir
rily follow, that branches may bee reni: off from the if^^-
ble Church, and fall away from inward holinefle, havQ iu-
terprcted this Text, moft agreeablcto the Analogy of faith,
and the Apoftles fcope : and to conclude^ let the Reader aj-
fo judge, whether this Text (notwithftanding i^ll y(HV" in-
deavcrs) remainenotftillin myhands^asOncofqi/ftrQng
holds, to defend this conclufion. That tbcchildrpK^btU^ff'
WW, have the fame right t9 the Corvmant wltk f fcjr tos^H^ ^tk^^
childten of the Jtwes had mth their ?artmu , > "i ,. r I - [ ; . / ^ ^ >

Now (fay you) you are come to my principal! hold, 'ToS & S
I Car. 7. 14. I perceive at firft you thinke there is fome i Cor'y/vin-
ftrength in it, for you have brought a huge army againft dicatcd.'
hy anddrawnea long line about it, raifed abundance of
batteries, and in a very long difcoiu-fe fay romcthingalmoft
to every fentencc of mine concerning this Scripture^ and
after all your (hot is (pent, you cry 7^ trtHmpbiUy I havi got
your chkfe bold which you bad befi manned, Trucly Sir you
fpeake like EpicomporthrojfL-hombomachides^ qui diffiavit omnei
in csmfk CftrgmPidfrAir. But the beil i$,all the ground is not
yours thaty Qu lialkc ovcrjuor every man kiucd ibat you

U (hoot

14^ Inf49$^^3dpifmefnved from Serif ture.

llhootat. I have no fearc that your great fwelling words
will give any (atisfa&onto your judicious Readers; wee
will come to what you have done, and tiy what frrength
there is in this long Sedionj and that I may make my an^
(wer to it as briefe as is poffible^ I (hall bring all the matter
of your difcour/e to three beads. Firft^ ilich thi^igs as
ivherein you and I doe agree, and muft necelfarily agree.
Secondly fiich things as wherein whether wee agree or diia-
gree it matters not much to the point in controverfic, thefc
two I (hall but touch upon. Thirdly:, fuch things whereii;,
wee differ, and which really concerne the controverfie be-
twixt us. And thefe things (God willing) wee will try out
hand to hand.

Firftj wee agree, that find ified may have many fcnfcsy

and that of tho(e manyj two onely are applicable in

this place, either the matrimJmaUJantnficciuoTiy which you

infift upon^viz, Chafiitie in the wife and bus hand ^ or lavpjuU

matrimony hetxpem ihem J and legitimation of the children. Or

elfe Ittftrftmcntall fan&ificationy in the husband and mfey and

fedifoM holimffe in the children^ which I iniift upon. Wee

agree aUb, fecondly, that fy may fignifie by as well as

in^ Wee further agree thirdly, that theTc^^f and meaning of

theTex^is, that the Corinthians having writ for the ApoSles

refolution whether it were lawfiill for them who were

conyertedj ftill to retaine their Infidell wives or husbands 5

the Apoftle here refolves that cafe upon the affirmative. And

I will further 4gr^e\vith you fourthly, that thefe words elfi

wtre your Children uneleane^&c, are a medium or arpiment

whereby the Apoftle proves the former fcnteiice> the Hnk--

heving husband isfanaifiid in the mfe^&c, I yet fuVthcr agree,

chamitr oficn fiftly, that all the places which you cite out of the Icanied

cited to no Chamier zre Orthodox^ and cleareJy prove that for which

purpofe. |j^ brings them, viz. 7haifanBification cannot bee underfioad:

oftbecQnveTfioaoftbetmbeUevtr^throHgb the diligence of the fe-

ietver^page 73. j^ndtbsi the Argttment is not fetched from a

iofttiogent thing jfag^y^m And that holineffe is not meaniif cf-

TimoniallbolineJIeXy/hkh Cenfe was afcribed to Afffftfiine)

f^'7^* And that the hglheffi of Children kert^ k ncf tba.

tsUtb :•

Inf^m- Bapifmef roved from Serif tun. i^j

i»hicb they receive from their eclucation,fag, 75. And I am iurc

you nmft agree with mee, fixtly^ that in all thele CefUmo*

nies you have cited out of Chamiery there is not one Word

againft my Interpretation, or for tlie Juftilication of yoursj And againft his

yea and I know alfo that you will agree with mee ftvcnth- ownc ;uc(g-

Jy^ that the learned Cbamier'm a large difputc doth con- ^^^^

futeyour interprctation^and vindicate my interpretation, as

the onely true and proper meaning of this Text, even in

that very place where you quote him. And therefore I know

the Reader will agree with mee (whether you doc or no) ^^^ffi-^nllratl

that you doe but abufe your Audior and Reader, both in wj^^'i.^^iOj

making a flourifb with Cbamierj name nothing to thepur-

po(c,and thereby would make the Reader conceive Ci&jwier

to bee of your dde when hee is point-blanke againft you..

I yet farther agree with vou, eighthly, thatfrme Interprc

Un both antkm and modirne doe interpret this Text as you

doe, and I am fure you will alfo agree that it were

cafie for mee to bring ten for one, who interpret thii

Text as I doe 5 chough I forbearc to bumbaft my bookc

with them, no wayes deiiring that this caufe ftiould bcc

Carryed by number of fuffrages.

Secondly, tliere are many things In this Seftion wherein ^-^cifcdby
wee differ, but the caufe depends nothing at all upon them; Mr.ram^/
firli,you feveraU times cite the kam^dBxZa as if hec were contrary to hit
of your mind in the interpretation of this Text* to con- owne;uagc»^
ftrueit of matrimmiall Mimjp, I confelTc the caufe depends ^^^*'
not upon Bcza*j judgement j but your reputation depends
much upon making this good : That you (hould dare to
cite an author as interpreting it for you who txprofeffo inter*
prets it againft youi Bej&j indeed acknowJedgeth this Text
warrants a lawfuU ufe, but withall ikts himfelfe to prove
that that's not all, butTaith it's iuch a (an£Uhcation as I
contend for, and faith, ho mm mufy interprtt it otbertvift them
I doe of federaB holimffe : according to the Covenant, Er§
Deus tuufi&e* And out of that very Text doth (in his an-
notations upon thatplace) aflert Infant-Bapttfme, Second-
ly, you thinke this Text was never Interpreted offeJerall
holimffe until! the dayes of Lmher : thecauie I coilfefle de«

U a pcnda

pcnds not upon this, but it difcovers feme defeft in your
reading, fince it is apparent that Athanafiuf^ one of the
Tertumn^nd nj^ft ancient of the Greek Fathers, and Tertttllian one of

potndfhfs^''' ^^^ ^^^ ^"^^^"^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ Fathers bring this Text to
Ttxtfor feder prove the prerogative of the Infants of beleevers, which
raUiioUncfle. certainly they could not have done if they had interpreted
asyou doc, that their children werclegitimatej nor have
given them any title to the kingdome of heaven, if to their
u ndcrftanding it had not related to the Covenant of Grace.
Thirdly^ whether Mr. Blakfi pai^alleling this place with
Gala. 15 . (upon which you fpcnd almoft two whole pages)
bee good or no, or whether thefe places doe interpret one
another^iB notraueh niateriall to the prelent controverfie
about this Textj although it be plaine^ that hy Jewes bj na-'
inn the Apoftlc intends ihz Chpfrcb-privikd^e of the lewet in
bppoiition to the Gemilej^zs I have eliwherc (hewed. Fourth-
ly, whether Bellarmhe was the firft who expounded holy for
legit /wf^rtTj in confuting whereof you ipend another page;,
and alledgefundry Authors before him who founderllood
fc this is not to ourbufineffc though you take occafion
to fhew your reading in it*

Thirdly, this therefore onely remaines to bee tryedout
between us, whether this bee meant of lan^fulmffe oftPtd-
t0ckJ>ttr»^enmanandwifiy and kguintation of chiUref?) as you
affirme; or of Jrrprumt.'f2ta!I fanSificaiion^ betweene husband
and wife quoad hor^ and ftder all bdimjp of childnn^ as I
affirtnc 5 wherein I fhali,firft,make it plaine that your In-
terpretation cannot hold, (econdly, that mine muft ftand.

The icnk which you undertake to juftifie is, that it *f ^

Miitrimmiall fanB'^cdthn^vjhcn. the Apoftle faith the nnU-

kevmg hmhmdiffanBifiedhythe n>ifiy&c. the meaning i?^

their mardage Is lawful], and their children are not unclean^

,. Ni/5ro^; the meaning is, they are not baft a rds,but lawfully

inrerp^rera/icn' ^^o^^' Againft this ! difputc. Firft, in making good

ofrhisText tliefoHfe Arguments uftd in my Sermon againft this in>

©verthrownc tttprctauon 5 the firft whereofwas this, unclean ncfle and

byeighrAr- holineflcwhen oppoled one to ar^other, are never mcjnt

«oraems. of civilly lawfoU Or unlawful 1, butarcalwayc* ufid in «

Sacred.

Infdnt'BafUjfni frevtdfr&m Serif ture. 14^

faefei [mfettXloAmg to a right ofadmifiw into ornfe in the t4-i Arinmcnt
**^r«jp/eorre«pfc5whkhwcreO'A^^ofthevifibleGhurch, & ^'n^icared.
holimfft is always taken for ^feparation of PerTons or things
from common to facred u(e. To this you except many things.
Firftjyou like not t^^Qtcrmchill holimjfe^yoa rather would
call itmatrlmnmall holinejpf^ becaufeits inflitiition is of Ged^
not from the laws of i^^fl. 1 Reply,this is a poor fhift •, by
holy and cit^i// wee diftinguifh things belonging to the firjh
^wd fee ond table. All fecend Table duties are civill things,
though their inftitution be of God; ciz/ii/ Maglflracy though
inftimted of Godj obedience of children to their Parents^
though in ftituted of God j andallthcj«^/c#ji// larper given
to the Jews about menm and fuum ; were they not therefore
civill, becauie they were Gods in ftitutions ? Or is marriage
a bulinefle-niore concerning Religion, then thc(e are? is it
a Sacrament T or how el(e, is it more holy then thefe other
civill things?

You except (econdly, unckannejft may bee taken for ha-
^ardy^m an aSufion to a Taifermck ufe : BaJtMrds being num-
bered among the uncleane, I Reply^this is fpoken without
any proof, for although the Lord {kkhyl>ettteronorK.2^:2. ^^^^^ *? '2.
Tt?Jtt a ksftard jhall not come into the congregation of the Lordy ^^»i«^^«^»'^<^^'
it cannot be meant that ^jj^W/ (hall bee numbered among
the ww/tf^w, or having nothing to doe about T^^erw^/c or
Temple fenrices; for there was the fame law for Etmnchs who
were not excluded as unclean; no nncle4n perfbn might cate
the f affeaver^xai^t no Eunnch or Bayard tztt the Pafleover?
Bcfide, when yon thus conftrue,c//e wereyour Sildren uncltAn^
youmaketherca^ia/?jr^andundean,tobe termlm convert
iihiks^ confequently every unclean child muft bee a bayard.
Now if any man would fuppofe that bailardj might bee rec-
koned amongft ifwc/^^n, yet all i»^c/e^ children niuft not bee
reckoned amongft hsftards , all the children of the Gentiles
were »cc/ej«, but they were not bayards. It is needlefle to
enter into a further difcourle about that ^\dsxJ)tHt,^ 3 . Jhow
or in what ienic a baftard might not come into the Con-
gregation*, whether by the Congregation be meant the Ssm-
hedrln^ m famej or whether his not entriiig, bee of bearing

Y J Office,.

150 Infdnt-BAftifmi proved fnm Scrifture,

Officc^as others; or of not marrying a wife an Ifraclitefle, as
others . it matters not, itf s fufficientthcy were not numbrcd
among the unclean.

Thirdly, you refer me to the iThef.^.j, God hath mt
called us toun^kanmff Jftauntaholimffe j and defire me to tell
you^wbiitberuncleanfgejje be not there meant of fornkatimy and
ij hJineJfeychaftttj, lanlwer, I prevented this in my So^
nion ; and (liewed that cbajlity among the Heathens, is ne-
rercaJledfan&ificatlon^ the holy Spirit onely is the Spirit of
fan^tification, and the bodies of the Heathens are not the
temples ot the holy Ghoft : but among belecvers it may be
called fb, becaufe it is apart of the new creation , a part of
the inward adorning of the Temples of the holy Ghoft;
andthoughthechaffityof beleevcrs is onely amorallrer-
tue in re(peft of the objeQ;^ yet in rclpeft of the root, prin*
ciple,end,i(^s a Chriftian vertuejand itfs an aft of pure Re-
^' ligion^to keep a mans (elf unfpotted from the flefti, as well

as from the world5ljm.i.27.BefideS5l now ^ddejtherc is no
^!^jl^^« 4* reafbn that that place, i Theff*. 4.{houId be reftrained to fornix
&Vnot iarer- ^^'^^"^ becaufe many other finj are named in that place, be-
prets this Text ^^ f(/rHicatimM^rk the words in the 3 ver, the Apoftle tels
as Mr. Tmbes them. That the WiU of God U thdrfsn^Hficationy that every one
^ould fecni to fiojild ah^aine from fornication*^ that no mmgoe beyond anddf
make him, ^^^^ ^^ brother in any matter. And then he gives this as a
rcafon common to all the particulars, bca^x^t God hath not
calltdptftouncLanrnffeybut to bjlineffe. So that by holineflc
dicre, is meant not onely chaftity but jnfiict: al(b i and what
kind of confequence were there in fiich an Argument ; let
no man goe beyond his brother in bargaining, becaule God
hath not called us to fornication, but to chaility? Where-
as you alledge Beza thus interpreting this Text,verf 3. Tbii
is themli of Gody evenjioHrfanbification^i. e. faith Be2a, that
you ahflain from fornication • and upon this id efty you build
much; therefore I (liall confider it. Sir.f^ eft put in by Bcza^
hath reference not onely to that which doth immediately
follow, n^LTnclyythatjou abfiaine from pmication ; but to the
6 vcrfe aUb, that no mm goe beyond and defraud his brother:
MezaisLitb^idePyUtabftimatisy nt nt qttis ofpritnat & habeat

jHsfui,

infuni-HAftiftf^fTPvedfrom Sirifture. 1 5 1

mi^nu It being ordinary to have inftances given in the
fecond Table, when the duties of the firft Tabic arc inclu-
ded, ifnot principally intended 5 that the holyGhoflmi^t
meet with Hypocrites, who are apt to put all their holineflTe
in outward performances.Yea5Be2:ui in the fame place in his
Annotations upon the word*?'*^^ , referres him to hb.
17. 17. and his note upon loh. 17. 1 7. is this, SanBum
anttm dicititr , qnod Deo peculiariter devotum ac conJe:ra''
tKmtft'j an exprelfion agreeable to the Hebrew notion, and
therefore Bezi addeth, eji atttem hoc vocjhHlum profeUum
ah Hihrdis:io that by Bez^ we are brought back to the n oti-
on oiconfecrating and devoting things to God. But you yet
endeavour further, and turneand windethe words every
way, and run over all w^ords that are of the fame Tribe or
kindred^ ct>*««C''''j ^Va'^oH^^'j iyi^iva^ becaufe you cannot find jjen. Steph,
aytafj^^ among the heathen ; and in the end you have mifrecked.
found an inftancc in Stepbanm^s TbefaHrw-i'whcre ^yt^'i^va fig-
nifies ca^imonUmfervOy [I am chafte, ] But firft, Stephanm
fpeakes but doubtingly, he puts in vidtiur^ which you leave
out. Befides, i^^kva is ufually meant, ^ '^ ^ix-.iyTi^m- th
'm7ni^(ntii\'7mi>A<T<tvTii ^ foSuid^ ^ and the veryinftance
which you from Stepbantu have brought out; of Demoflbemf:,
makes direftly againft you : for the Prieft faith, I offer Sa-
crifice, and I am in cafe to doe it , for I am pure from the
company of :fmanp «k»^*Vo iCvakkw tZv » j&^fivo97a>p^ and
all other things which might pollute me. That is, I
am holy accormng to my order, and therefore fit to doe
my office. Thcfe laft words which give the fiJI Ccnfc of the
place 3 you have (not very fairly) left out of your Quota-
tion. Yet you make another (upplement out of Corinth, 7, 1 Cor. 7 '^4, '
34. Thatj&e r?iaj k holy in body and fpirit ^ and demand whi' ^''^VT^^P'^I^'^
tber the meaning he not th^fiee may be chip, I aniVer, the ^ ^' ^^'
plainemeaningi9,that (he being free 'from worldly dirtra-
^on^, is at more liberty to give her (elf wholly to godli-
nefTe, then others can, who have thefc worldly avocationsj
and in trath it is a pretty odd (cnfe which you have inven-
ted of this place, ttennmarriedeareJ for the thinjis of Ood^ that
finm^bf cbafie-^ bmjbe thatis marriul cares f§r the things of tkt

ff% InfdiH'Sdftifm pr$vedfr0i» Serif turf 0

ffiorld hoopfiee m^j fleafe hgr bmband^ I wonder what lear-
ned man concurs wit;h you in dm : I doubt in this rai-e in-
I Tim. 4 f . terpretation you arc all alone. When I added 5 That tvtn
rindicatcd. ^^g ^i^at and drink ofheUcverj/anEiijied ia tbem,ferV(jfQr a rdi-^
glow endandufiy torefrtp thm wha are the Jempla ofthi bolj
Gb^fi^ Yon^inCvJCc^tbenu fsemj in eating and drinking they
da dn aU of r4igioa 5 ta which! need no other reply then
your next wordsj^/^ti/ tbey are fanCliped to them by the word
andpra^er^ they receiving them after an holy manner^ with
faithjfupplication, and thankelgivingj&c And that this
place of Timothy doth holdout more then a lawful! ufe, is
moft apparoitj becaufe it is fiich a aie of the cieatures^ as
th e heathen h ad not, who yet had a I awful! uie of the crea-
tures; and it is ftich a ufe gs is appliablc onely to beleeverS;
and fuch a ufe as is procured by the Word and prayer ;
and althou2;h wielded men doe not doc an adi of Religion in
feeding thebodies of tlie Saints, becaufe^aU their anions arc
uncleanejyct beleevers have an holy ufe. of thofe creatures
which heathens feed them withihaving the Word not onely
to warrant the ufe of them , but prayer to procure Gods
bleffing, to that end for which they ea^e and drink> which ii
toliveunioCjod, .^ .•,-,=

iyir^.vindica- My fecond Argument was, had this been the meanings
red. Elfc rpcreyoHT children unclean^ hut now are they holj;^ elfe bad

yonr children binhafiardj^ ^Ht nan? they are legit im ate '^t he Apo^tes
anf^er had not been true 'y becaufe then if Pne of the parent j had
not been a htkever^ and fi by bdnga hekever^ bad fan^ijiid, the
unbekeier^theirchildrenmHflbave b^e/i bafiards y rvhereas n;ei
hgotv ihildrenhrn in law/nil wedlock are legit imatej though hjth
the Parents were urJekeverj, To which you aniwcr, this pri-
viledge ccmej not from the faith of the kletver 5 but from the re*
latioH of marriage \ and your reafon is, becaufe the Apofk faith
not ^ the ui^cUeveris fanUi^edby thebekevtr-^ but from the hwr
band or the tfiife^ although ofje or two old Copies have the word be^
Lever ^ yet the ftfi haze it not j and the reafon fannet be conceived
rightly to hi any other yhut that although the perfon meant were a
bekeveriswei as an hw^andorwife'^ yet in this paffage ih^
were conjidered onely 4S hmband andmfe^ and not as bekeversyta

intimate

imma*t that tbtfatjBificatiBndidHot come from i be faith of the
party^httfdmeonjHi^aU relation, ' . rr ■

\ r^ly> fhis-expreil^ly 'CroiJes die Aportlds..cqnft/IoH
(cope, fodtiie qaeftion'was not, iviiahcr^ti luisbarid mi^bt
leave his wife, or a wife her husband, the Apoiile had re-
fblvedtluticafc before, «ir, i o. bat whethera ^i54?2>i«f hui^
band might leave or fcparate from an unbeUev^ ; no C^aith
tbe ApoftIc)tf «^(j «w^( /c^r beamtejit *c dmlltagether^^(Wnoty
let thcmgo, a biother or a fifieri« not ifv hoftdagc irt feb a
C2&yn>ytfofthunbekezerpff^^ n^ifil but

now in your fenfe, the Argument had been as goodj- to fay,
the HHbtkever h Tand: tied in^ ^r by >tke unkleevcr^ or the ie-
kever is (anftificd iiK or by the »7i^ei««^^, wfiicii hadi beene
nothing to the queftion in hand. ' Agalncj fee Apoftler^ eX-
preflely naracs the iiitbeleevG' in oppdltion to the wife Or
husband who is a belcever ; of which there had been no
uie, if he had intended onely niatrimoniail fanftificacion,
he might have (aidkdie husband^is fan6\aiied bf the wife,-
and the wife by the husban(i, Jetthem bee what th^y will,
vvhich cannot be ipoken truly, when the Scripture plain ely
fayes , Nothing is pure or holy to the unbelcever, as Bezd
well obferves upon this place: ^nd though the word belee-
yer be not in the Text, [_ yet it is neceflfarily intplyed , and
therefore fonie Copies have it in the Margin, not onely one
old Copy, andaCopy ofC/en«t;?7f^ and the Vulgar Latine
Co reade it, but Attguftine alio in his book, wherein hee ex-
pounds the Sermon o!i the Mount 5 and terttiUian mUhrit
ficmukad ux^et7if\ for as Beza rightly obferves, tfhequefti*
on is concerning a beleever, what he is to doe with an un-
bclccvcrj and when he fayes the unbeleeving pai ty is fan5:i-
ficd in c^rby the other party,it plainly implyes the one par-
ty ianftifics the other, viz* the beleever fan6tifies the uribc*
leever,(notrrtro)wliich needed not be faid of matrimoni-
all ranftificadon, asyoucallit,for in that fcnfc both par-
tics were fanftified in themlelves, not in or by one anodier,
marriagebeing honourable among all, and the bed fthc
ccitw') undefiled . Befides, there are words which plainly
denotata it a little before, a br erh^ or fift^r^ which are taken

X for

f j4 Infdnt'BaftiJmefrcvtdfrom Scrifturi.

for beleevers, vcr. 12, if a brmhtr have an nnhtkeving or infdd
wife^ ver. \^» ab) other or affier U not in bondage in fitch a cafe :
Andifyou fiiould fay the belceving party fanftifics the un-
belecver, not qua beleeverj but by the Word and prayer. I
anfwer, this would make the Argument ftronger 5 for it is
therefore fuch a fanflaikation as heathens'are not capable
of.
•< My Third Argument wiSytbt Afojikf argument had had
no firengfhiniiyfHppofingtbetextrferetobe interpreted at theft
men wsuldhave it : their doubt (fay they) wmi'their marriage
79 M an unlawful! wedlacl^', and jo confiquently their children ba^
fiord J ^ andthej maki th$ Afofiki anfwer to be^rvereyonnH law-
full man and wifely our children jpenbaflardil which k^de of
Argument (laid 1) tf>ere but idempet idem* Your anfwer to
this is fuch a one as I know not what Co make of its you fay
J doe not rightly fa downe my Advcrfariei explicdtion of the A-
pofile^ the doubt (fiy you) n>ai oneljy whetbtr tkey might live in
conjugal! ufe *y but there was no qutfiim of their children^ nkf
ther they r»ere legitimate or noi-^ they v^re ajfurtd their children
jvertn&t hafiards^hut legitimate^ and this the Apofile nfts as bis^
medium^ to prove they might lawfully live together. To which
1 Reply^ take this for granted which you fay , and (if I
want not common fenie ) you plainely and fully aniwcr
your felfe, for if they were out of all doubt, that their chil-
dren were not baftards^ then it was n ot pofli ble for them to
doubt whether their owne marriage were Jawfullj take this
to be his Argument, your children are legitimate, this you
all grant : ErgOy your marriage is lawfully of which you
doubt:Ilf/»w^«»K^^JrjMici>they received th€ one as a fiip-
pofed principle, that their children were lawfully begot-
ten, which could not be but in a lawfull wedlock, yet had
not light enough to know,that their wedlock was a lawfull
wedlock; if they doubted not of thclatter, how could they
of the former?
-4r^wnt4 My Fourth Argument was according to this interpretation^

the Apofile J anfiver could no way have reached so the quieting of
, the ir confcienca^y their dou^t wasy whether they were not to tmt a^
K^aytheir wives and children at nothelongingtoG ody m icing a'

feed

Jnf/mt-BAftifme f roved from 5 criftme. 15^

fiedwhom Qod would not oame among bps people^ andthtt anfmr
could never have quieted their cmfekncet^ to tell them thtir marri"
Mge TV as UwfuB^ andthcirchildnnlegumatu

To which you anfwer, this Argument itgrenndeddn a ml"
ftaksi *he ^tufiion rv4S not (fay you) ^bout putting aw ay of their
Ifives and children M net hdon^ngto God^butfomeihingelfe.

I Rq>ly3 but if it be not grounded upon a niiftakc, and
that (as BiZa faycSj) Paulif not here arguing ahmtcivill policy y
hut arguing a cafe of conjcience. Whether becaufe of the ido-
latry of the wife or husband. Religion did notrcquire they
fiiould be put awayj becaufe God would not have his holy
leed mingled with cliem, ihen by your owne confclfion ^he
Argument (lands good, which whether it will uot be made
out, ihall (God willing)by and by appeare,

Thefe fourc Arguments I u(ed before; and whether the
firft three be not a&eady vindicated, let the Reader Judgc^ *
the fourth comes to bemade good afterward, when I come
toconfirmetheinterpretationwhichlraadeof it, I (hall.
briefly adde foure other Arguments, to fhc w diat this Text
' cannot be interpreted as you'would have it.

Firlt, you (ay. The wibekeving husband iffan^ifiedfy the ^ ^^^ ^^gji^,^
n^rfe , and fan6ification you here take for cha^ipf : which is Mr. Tombes in-
a mo(t incongru ous (peech,to (ay that the one party makes terprecacioo.
the other chafle; if he or fhc were not unchaft, how are they
made chaite by the husband or wife ? and li they bee un-
chafte, how doth this make them chafte ? marriage is
then honourable or chafte when the bed is undcfiled :
this Argument is onely from the un(eemline(Ie of the cx-
preflion.

Secondly, my (econd I take from your own words, psg. ^ ^^^,„^
y^. WhQVcyon(xy yThefanUijicatim of the unbekever bere^
is fucb a fanEh location at is parallel with that^ iTim.4#5.
vfibtre the treatures are Jan^tficdto the pure by the word and
prayer':, therefore there muft be more meant then the Hea-
tlicns arc capable of 5 therefore another fanftification then
matrimoniallfan&fication, for that the heathens had: if
therefore this muft be (iich a (anftification as that place in
Timothy munts^ it muft be a fanftification peculiar onely
tob«l«ever8. X 2 • Third-

15^ JnfanUd^tifmefronfcdfrom ScripHtre.

fjirffimDi* Thirdly^ yet a third Argument I take from your owne
words : you have endeavoured (though in vaine) to (hew
that ^^JJjr^j may, he called «wciejw, and bal^ rm,y be called
chafie-^ but you doe not^ and I beleeve you cannot produce
out of the Scripture the lead fhew of a proofc, that holi-
ncfle iignifies kguimationh you are holj^ id cft^/<?i< are Uwfnl^
Ijhegothn'y ifyou can, pray Ictus have it iii the next : fure I
Mai, 2.15. am, that placCj Mai, 2.15. Tkat man might feek^ a holy feed ,
expounded or rather^ ajeedof God^ Vi'ill give you no help; for though
and vindicated. ^y^e^^/G^i^Jintliatplace^might be interpretedCas M, Calvin
would have it) for legitimate^ becaufe (as he fayes) that uies
tobecalled Divine, which is excellent, a legitimate feed
is in comparilbn of (purious, yet this is nothing to holi-^
neile. The word in the Hebrew there ufed, is not a holy
feed, but a feed of God, an eminent or an excellent ieed, as
• all eminent or notable things ufe to be called j great Ar-
mies arecalled the Armies of God-, great and high hills, are
called the hills of G^d 5 great and tall trees, are called the
trees of G^d : fo that take a feed of God in that place for a
legitimate feed, yet there is nothing to prove that h olinefle
may figiwhe legitimation ; though for my owne part (i'^ce
*<jw/zt;iri)i himibly conceive the Prophet in tended, not a
legitimateieed onely, (as Mn Calvin would have it) but to
ftiew what was Gods chieie end in the inftitution of^
marriagcj viz* The continuance of a feed of God, whercia
the Church is to be propagated to the end of the world j-
now according to your interpretation of holineife for cha-^
ftity, the Apoitles Argument muft run thus, Jj y^nr marri*
age n^erenot larvfiiUyyonr cbi/drftijt?ouid be ifjfiardj ^ hm mj»
ihijai't citf/^wbich fenfe were too ridiailous which to avoid
you are competed in ftead of chafte to iay legidmate,u Jdi-
out any example of fuch a ufe of the word ^<;/^.
8 Argmm. Laftly, yet one Argument Qiore 1 propound, your fcrtle

n>akes the Apofties Argument wholly lncon(equent> if the
unbelccving party wtvt not fanftified by the beke vcr, (yiz^
matrimonially) then were your children unclean, that is,
(in your fenie) Baftards, which follows not 5 fdr if they ■
were both unbelecvers;>ycttheir children were not bai^ards;

Infdm^Bdptifmefr&veifrdm Serif tHrc. i^j

and if they were both chaft^ (yet being Infidelb^ their
children were undeanc, id efl^ Infidells and Pagans, (o that
to clofc this I retort your owne words^page the7$. That
Ut thft beff'aated (that it if meani ofmatrimonioQ fimHificatiffn^
M of mcefitie it mnfi^ then the tmcleantnejfe tnuft bee megn$ cf
Bafiard^y and hothiejft of Legitimstiin ; but I iay, i centra^
let this bee granted, (a« of neceifitieitmuft') that it i« not
ineanc of matrimoniall fan6lifieation , or lawfulncfle of
wedlock, then undeannefTe muft not bee meant of Baftard/,
nor holinefle of Legitiniation, but of fonie other holineile,
vvh ich what it is, is next to be enquired .

Having thus plaiaely overthrowne your interpretation, ^,
it remaines that I make good my interpretation a^^ainii r^J/J^!^ '"^^'*
yoarexceptionsiliaid, their duuptjetma to artjejrom the Law dicaredfrom
ofGodj Tphicbvpoi in force in Ezraes time, vphere Gods peopk ^r.Tombes
n>ere arderedtofttt oT^jy their InjideU valves and children^ at a ^^c^prions.
pliuiedfied^ Tvhicb God Would not have tningled with hisowne:^' ^^"P"on*
ycu aniwer, firi^^TouJee very little agreement^ beitveene this cafe
and that 5 and that thteajks art very farre different of tpfo per-^
fins not under the LatP mdrryingin unbeleefe^ and of two per^
fins under the Lan>^ the one a lew hjf profijjion^the other a ftrapf^
ger^ fccondly yand that n9ne oftbefhrafes^tXceptthe word(J)olj\
are ufedin the one place which are not nfedin the otheriihirdiyjoH
rather tbinke their dcnbt an>fe frmn a former Epiflle which bee
had wrote t^ them^ntioned I Cor, j'.p, wherein he commmded
them not to k^ company with fimicators^ or Idolaters^ thereupon
they might douht whether they Jhould continue vthb their unheke'
zingy9kefeUowes*

I reply, firft, that thecafe Were the very feme when their
fcrople arofe, for though they were both unbeleevers when
they were married, and at that time neither of them both
belonged to the Church of God, yet when one of them
was converted, and the other remained an InfideD, one of
them was now become a Church-member, the other re-
mained an alien, their cafe was the very fame, and they
Hading their conc^tion parallell with that in Esj'a might
very well apply that cafe to themfel ves, and make this their
doubl. Secondly, although the fhrafij ufed in Ezra differ
from thoft ufed here^ that makes npthing againft this col-

X3 ' kaioii,.

J . g Infant'BAftifmi frovedfrem Scrifture^

leftion, becauie phrafts are ufed according to the different
adminiftrationSjCach fpeaking according to the received
dialcft belonging to the adnuniitration they lived under.
Thirdlyjand as to that,you iay that it might arife from J Cor.
5.9J aniwer, (hould that begranted;yet my fenfe remaines
as ftrong as before, for if this fcruple now rofe, that if be-
Iccvers becauie of the unbelecfe or InSdell condition of the
husband or wife, might not by the rule of the Gofpel con-
tinue in marriage focietic with them, it muft bee from fame
rule of Religion, which muft ilrike upon their conlcicnce,
and from what rule could they gather, that their marriage
which before was lawfull was upon their converlion turned
into fornication^ and ii their doubt were ( as your {di^

trant) whether it were lawfull for a converted party, or a
eleever ftill to retaine their Iniidell wife or husband, (not
of unbeleevers whether they bee fanftityed matrimonially
one to another) the doubt muft neceflarily arife from fomc-
thing in Religion, fomecaie which was peculiar to belee-
vers, now (as Mr. Beza iaies truely) the doubt being in
their conlciences^ of an unla wfiilnefle to continue in their
married condition from fome thing peculiar to Gods peu-
ple,the Apoftle (hould have ufcd a moll indircft argument to
paciiie their conicienccs in referring them to thecivill Lawes
of other nations jby which their marriage is proved lawiuU;
and to what purpole (hould hee diftourfe of Baltards or the
like, when their confcicnces were (crupled in fomething
which begun to concernethem upon their convcrfion, and
to tell them they were fan^Ulied in their unbeleefejcould ne-
ver have reach t the (cruple arifing, after they begun to bee
belecvers, bccaule their marriage might be firme and good,
while they remained unbeleevers 5 yet the Iniidell might
now become impure in that relation of marriage to the
other, which was converted. And therefore it remaines,
thatitmuft bee relblved from forac rule which muft reach
belcevers, as they were the people of God, and not bee
common to Infidels with themjnow what is that Argument
which ?atd here ufes to fatisfie them? ( which nuiii reach
them as they were belecvers) your k^iz grant it is this, tifi

twert

Tf$fanuBdptifmefr6n^dfrpmScriffure. | ^^

T^erefmr children unckmey n^hichU the meiium^ Uoaufejour
thimen art not uncleane httt holy^ there fon the mheleever mitfi
ke granted to beefau&ifiedto themfeor bwbmd^ this Argu-
ment muft therefore neceflarily infcrre fonie kind of holi-
Bc0e which is appliable onely to the State of Religion,^
therefore it muft befedcrall holinefle.

^ . Butagainftthisyoucxcept many things. Firfi:, fhi9 emld i. Exceptloni
nnt hav9 rejolved the doubt in thf cafi of thofe nbo ^ A-^t could
not heefan&ified io this endy or By rtafon of accldtndall ina-'
hilitiefor gtmraiion^ tbej might fiiU difart each from other mt"
mtUffianding this rtafon. I anlwer, it foUowes not, this is a "^«/^'
laying downe of their right, which they raay clainie when
ever diey are capable of it, this is their priviledge, which
rcmaines firme though it (hould never come into Aft> as if
a freeman of a Citie (hould have right to have all his chil-
dren borne freemen^ itoistobcenumbred among hispri-
vilcdges, though hec fhould never have a child, this rea-
ches to men and women, married, and unmarried, yea
even to children yet unbome: befides, the firft part of ic
reacheth to the bed^even the coitm is not onely undefiled,
butfanfti6ed. Secondly,fayyou3 thi resfon would then nm^* Exception,
thw!^ you may live together^fdr yonmay hgef a holy feed^ and fi
their eonfdmces fhould hAVe been refolved of their prefent lan^fnU
Irving together from a future event tphkb was nmertaine^ and
here (as I toncht before) you bring in C^^wiVr nothing to
thepurpolej I anfwer,it is not from a future event, but from Anftv,
a pofitive reall truth. ifPauh reafbn bee framed thus, tbi
children rvhichheUtvtrjkeget upon their Jnfidell yoktrfeUet^ej are
a 6oly feedy thenfiri beleevers have a fan^ifyed ufe $f their In*
fidtll huf bands or rpivfj^ had this been a reaibning from a
fimire contingent.As for what you here cite out of Chamier^
I airiwer onely this, I perfwade my icMe you are by this
time afhamed of your impertinent quotation, I aflure my
felfc, ifyoubee not, your friends are. Thirdly, lay you, ^ Exccpti©»»
fanUificationis here not afcrihedto God at feU^ing feme from
others to fueh an a/e, But it common to all unlfi:keving hw bands
in rejfetl of their wives^ and Cumesfrom that eammon relation^not
ffcciaHdififfiaHou. lawfircr^thisArgupicatiiaplaincfetting ^nfr^,

downe

vjIo I»fMiiuB4ft}fmefr$vedfr9mSjCriftmre.

downc die qucftion in concroverfie 5 as an Argument t«
prove ic felf&> and I have already proved the eontnuy,
that it is a priviledgc not common f^ ^l who arc marri-*
ed^bnt peculiar to i»i;/ett/er/. Fourthly^ iay,you^ ;/f*fW/»g/^
thS^ expojifion tlje WirdsfoHomngcsuld itot be true^ tlft were JMW
children trndeane^ but nprp Jbej ^t ixUji B^tSkfe in ihif fwnie
6f rtafsning ibis pr^p/ffitim ii Mtcludsd^ ikiht . ckL^drm cottld
not bit holy mtbtmi thatfan&ificafi^nj which (^faj J0i) Ufalfe^
bccjuft children may bee in "Covenant ^ Had bee regenerated ^
thsH^ their parent J had never been tbuf funUlficd the one n> the
other ^ the ehildren of Infidel parents may bee fanUified. I re-
ply, not while they arclnfants^ they arc not by any biit^
priviledgeco bee accompted as belonging to die Church of
Chrift, which is the onely thing about which wee are di-
fputing, no nian ever went about to prove out of this
Text that none can ever bee conrertcdj whole parents are
not ianftified the oneunto the other,

5. Exception. Next (after another impertinent bringing in of Cbjpikry

you reaibn thus, tak^ itinfuj ftnfe-^ &nd it is no fatifjaHory
reafon jqh may live together^ for you may beget a holy fyd , I
ani[w€r 9 this is the iatne with your iccond A'gunient
j^jf^^ anfwered before 5 and wherein I pray you lies the
weakenefle of it, you may live together^ and have a hdy ttfe of
youf nnheieevingyok^rfeUertes^ firGod efteemej the feed of fueb
to bee an holy feed as sruely as if both were belfevfrjy h this a
llighior unfetisfyingan%er? nay I adde furtlier, had the
Apoftle gone about to prove, that a bdecving wife and a
beleeving husband have not onely a lawful! enjoyment
one of another, (as heathens have) but a (anSificd, as
they have of other creatures^ because elfe their children
were uncleane, but now they are holy, all your excepti-
ons would lieasftrongagainft this laft as againft the for-
mer, for you might have faidj this reaches anelythofethm are
of 0gei'j ftcondly^ thU depends Hp4>n a future contingent 5 thirdly^
this depends upon their common relation*:, fourthly ^ and children
may behalyy that ^, afterward rtgetttrate ihmgh thu he deriytdy

6, Exception, jcf jj^g Readerconlider of iCiYougoe on,iiw^/5r, that in

your fen f the r&tfm is. plaint and fatisfuQ^y k$ ^hem irve /^-e-

ther

InfMt'Bapifme prwtdfrom Serif tun. MSt

ther^ though omhec a hekever^the tther €n unhekever'^ far not*'
tvithflandmg their difference in Religion^ they are hwband and
rpifey marriage being honorable amo^g all^ and the Led Hr.de filed j
I reply, but this had been no fatisfa<^ion to their fcniple^ Arjfn^*
their doubt was Kot whether their marriage were lawful]
while they were heathenS;» but whether now their consci-
ence would not bee defiled, in remaining joyned to Ido-
laters, and the Apo^lesrefolutionmuft remove thatjWhich
yourfenfc doth not; you granted, they doubted not the ■
legitimation of their children J and therefore your foile
could not have removed the fcruple, .as is above ftie'wed.
And whereas you adde thelik^ reJdHtion bee gives verje the 1 7. 7. Exccprieni
concerning eircftmclfed and tmcircwncifedfervantSy thy might fi Hi
continue rvith their majler, iheirChrifitan calling did notdi^olve
thofe relations, \ anlwr'er in one word, this /%, hath no Anfvip,
likenefle at all in it, there is no parallel betwixt theie two
cafes, hee fpeakes not one word about beleeving iervants
continuing with unbeleeving matters, but of fervants in
generall, whether their matters were beleevers or unbe-
Jeevers^ hee tells them that they might continue fervants
though they were Chritts free men, yet if they can fairely
obtaine their freedome, let them choofc that rathei%

One Argument more you bring againtt this ineerpretati- 8. Exception,
on, if ibe J an& location were meant of matrimmiallfan^ijija*
ti9n^andtheHncleanmjfeofftderall uncleanneffe^ f? of to exclttdt
thcmoHtof tbfi Covenant ^ nrhether of fiving grae-es or Church*
prrvtkdges^ then the prop^^ption rvas mofi fdfe^ hecaufe children
of parents not matrimonially fmUifUd one to the othtr^ jvere
within the Covenant^ as Fharez^Jeptha, and others, I anfvver, Aftjiv,
firft, I defire the reader to take notice that you take the Co*
venani here in thi^ place as I doe for CImrch-priviledgef, Se-
condly, indeed if fanSification bee taken for matfimoniall
fanCfifieation or lawfulnelie of wedlock, and undeanneffe
of federal! (anSification, the propolition may bee granted
to bee falfe, and let them who fb take it, undertake the
defence of it if they can, but let it bee meant of that other
fanaffication which I have juftified, the propofition is mofk
trac3 I fay againc, all the children of thole parents^ the

Y on«

Igj, JnfanUBdpifwefY6vedfrom Seripturc.

one whereof is an unbeleever^ are iincleane^ that is^ fede-
rally uncleane, excluded out of the Covenant in regard of
Church priviledgeS;, at leaft if not of faving graces5(wbich
is a fecret left to God) unlefTc the one bee fanctified in the
others this Argument I anfwered in my Sermon;, and fra-
med it thus, that boUmffe is hen meant ^ which could not bee un-
lejfeoneofihe Parents tvere fanliified to the othtr^ ^»t fiderall
. holinejfe of Children may hee^ ifphere Parents are not jan^iified
cm in or to the other ^ as in Bafiardj^ Davids child hj Bathfieha
&c, invphich cafithe children rr ere federally holj^ and yet the
harlot notfan&ifisd in^ or to the y^dnlterer or fornicator though a
helee?jer: my SLnfwerwsiSf that the Apojlks fcope in thu Aran-
ment is^ to pen? that the children home of an unbtUever r»ould
notheeholj^ unlejfe the other Tarent could remove that harre^ hut
hath no force of an Argftmmt tvhere both the Parents are ^eh tvers
which TvasihecafeoffheJeWeSj the cafeof Hjgar^BathJheba
€^c. All the reply you make to it page the 80. is to beftow
a few fcofRs upon it;> that my anhver is to denj the eonclufion
that lfher!i> nofMUlt either inthe matter or the forme of the Arau-
ment^ that thtfcope n^hich I mention is hut a meere figment ^l that
\ doe a< g9edasfay^ that the obje&or can make no Argnment mt of
h^ andthat therefore I need make^ 710 anfiver-^ And that z» c^e
^ place J grant the minor ^ then the major ^ and thus you mo fl gal-
lantly vapour upon me; I reply, were it not that fonae
Readers arc prone to thinkehlmto have the truth, who
fpeakcsmoft bravingly, I durfi: (without adding a word
more) leave all Schollers to judge whether my anfwcrde-
(erves all this fcorne ; but left you goe on in your vaine
boaftingjlfhallapplymyanfwermore particularly to this *
Argitment which you acknowledge to bee your owne^ and
I fay plainely that the major propofition is not true if taken
miiverfaUy^iI. Ihathdineffe of children is here meani^ which
€Quld not bi unlike one of the Partuts hee fanBified in or hj the
tther^rvhattvefthofefarents bee^ tbimgh both of them ^ee htlek-
mrs.

This propofition ( fa^ I ) is not true, bccaufe when both
the Parents are beleevers, there is no fiich barrc to tcerc-
mostdy by the oacs being fanftificdin thie^ other .quoadhoc^

Infant -B^ti [me ff&vedfr^m Scripture. 1 6^

fb faiTc as to make them capable to bring forth a holy feed,
they being both in the Covenant^ and that finfiill defiling
ot one anothers body, doth not deprive them of that pri=
viledgeof the Covenant to have their children accompted
to belong to the Church of God, but when one of die Pa-
rents being an unbeleever or Infidell, muft have their chil-
dren accounted out of the pale of the Church, unlefle that ^
barre be removed, to them it's true, that unlefle the one
bee fandiried in the other, (the unbeleever in, or by the be-
leever) their children would not be holy, if thcretbreyou
make not your major Co univer fall, but limit it as^the Apo-
flle doth, and make the Argument thus, T^hat holiaejje of
children U here meanty which could not 6ec unlfjfe the one wtrt
fanBifiediny or to the other ^ the one of the parents being an Infi"
deU^ but this noas the cafe rf Hagar^ 'Bathjheha^ feptha^ Pharez^
&e, Nowyour w/«orisfal(e, this was not their caie^ nei-
ther of their Parents were unbekevers^ though finfuU in
thata£l : and now I pray you, where lies the abfurditie or
weakneffeofmy anfwer , all this I faid before, onely you
would not lee it , and thought to carry it with more ad-
vantage to you by (coffing then by fblemne refuting. In the
<;lole I added^ indeed if a btkever ponld AdtiUtronJfj hsgtt a
child upon a Pagan^ thit obje^ion in that Cafe deferves to bee ftiV"
iher weighed^ hut here it comes not within the compajje of thiApO'
pies Argument j upon this alio you beftow two or three
IcofFes, you call it ^ wife remedy nothing to the purpofe-^ and
you conftrue it as if I laid, I rviS not anfwer the obje&ion which
it madey hut if you will make it thus^ and thtiSy then 1 will anfwer
it. Ti'uely Sir, I am perfwaded, all learned men, either
laugh at or pity this vanity of your dilputingj in fober
iadnefle tell me, was this the icruple of the Corinthians^ or
doth the Apoirle here meddle with this cafe of beleevers^ and
Z«/i^ei7W^^j>doth he not confine himlelfe to anlwer cafes
betwixt beleevers^ and their unheleezing wizes and hmhandst
or doe both thele cafes require one and the fame anlwcr >
To Ipeake plaincly,! could name Divines, who are no whic
inferiour to your felfe, who conceive that a belecver, even
when he commits fornication with an Infidcll, doth To far

Y 2 lemove

g^ Infant-d^fUfme frovedfr0m Scripture.

movctliebarre, intlieunbeleeying party , as that the child
is (in the belecving Parents right) to be reckoned to belong
to the Covenant of grace, and Church of God, but becaufe
I knew th at queftion fell not within the Corinthians cafe, and
was a queftion which the Text and controverfie in hand did
nottiemetogivea refo'lution to, I purpofely baulked it,
not once (ulpefting I (hould have met with an adverfaiy
founhigenuous^tofay noworie, who would have fiiid> the
baulkhig of this queftion had been thcyeelding of the caufe;
and I fay againe, this cafe of Baftards concernes not the
Apoftlescafc/whofpeakes not of parents adulterers, but of
husbands and wives, the one abeleever, the other not, yet
this advantage may bee made of thole Inftances, that if
among the Jewes, the tme Church of God, the children of
one parent a Jew, the other a Gentile (forbidden to bee
married) were federally holy, as in the cafe oi Pharezzvid
Thamar, then may one party a beleever intereft their
children in the fame Covenant, and if Baftards among the
Jewes were partakers of Church privilcdges, much more
reafonable may it feeme, that the children of both chaft pa-
rents, whereof the one at Ie*aft is a beleever, (hould be fede-
rally holy, it being Gods rule in this cafe, partuf fetptetur mi^
liorem partemc And now Sir, I leave the reader to judge,
whether you have taken this which you call my ehiefe
hold, you have indeed fet up your flag, but I hope your
Reader will take it downe againe.

Thus I have vindicated the truth of thefe two Conclu-

fions , and I doubt not but I have evidenced the truth of

them with fatisfa8:ion to the unprejudiced Readers^th'ough

not with that ability which fome others might have done:

Your felfe acknowledge, that if thefe two Concluiions

could be proved, the caule is gained; as well as loft, if thefe

Concluiions be loft.

€<mclufit>n J . }Jly third Gonclulion was this, God hath appoinied and or--

Baprifme fnc- ^j,lritd a Sacrammt or Seale ofimtiatidn to hie adminifired Unto

<ificMi ^^^^ ^^^ ^^*^^ ^^^^ Cozienafjf with him : Circumclfion for tbi

time ef that adini^ijiration rphicb jv as before Chrifls Imarnati'-

^/?, Baptifmt fince the time of hU incarnation: This (fay you)

Inf4»t'BdftiJmt f roved fr(nn Scripture. i ^j

may ^e granted. But whereas I adde. That our Baptifm coma
in the roomandufeofCircumcifim : againfl this you except
many things,

Firft you fay^this I deny. I wonder how you could grant
myConcluliontobetrue, and yet deny this. Nor would
you deny this, ifoneJy the baptizing of grown men were
intended to be proved out of it , 'tis for Infants iake you
thus labour to invalidate this Argument.

Secondly^ ; m make a large parotid betn^eene them , wherein
they are lih^:,tvhereinunlih^y and ^HW hotv farre you Come upy
andrvhereyoH di^r,

I Reply^ your felf fay fimilitndes are weak proofs^be fure
the (hewing of diflimilitudes is the weakeft way of anftver-
ing when the agreement holds in that whereto we apply ic.
A Lievtenant may be loc$tm tmens to a King, though there be
many things unlike between them* Let us make the bufi- -^z . «
neflTeasfhortasmay be : I agree with you in th.:t ipeech tifaian^rcir-'
which you cite out of Mr. Ball^ we may ftretch the paral- cumcifion are
lei no wider, nor 'draw it narrower then the Lord hath parallel by
d jne it; and in this point to alledge nothing but what God ^^^ hmifelf.
hath taught usj and as he hath taught us; and xvhatever
parallel men make between them^i f the Spirit of God make
not the fame, let it be reje£led. And I iay againe. That the
Spirit of God has made parallel in thefe particulars.

Firft, Circumcifion is the fame with Baptifme for the
fpirituall part; Ciraimcifion was the (ealc of the nex);> Binh^
Veut. 30. 6. Co Bnptifmey Tit, 3.5. Cel2, Circunicifion was
a ieale of the rightcoHpujfe of faith^ Ksmt % : 1 1 . fo Baptiftii^
A£is 8. and many other places. Ciraimciiion was the feal
of the Covenant ofGrace^ Gen, 1 7. fo Baptifincjit being the na-
ture* of every Sacrament,

Secondly^ Circumciiion Was the R'i*)' <>/e;jfr^wce and ad",
mittance into the Churchy during the time of that admini-
ftration, fb is Baptifrac during the tiriie of this adminiftra-
tion, Matth. a8. AHj 2. and throughout the whole Stoiy
of the -4(^/5 Circumciiion xvasthe dtfiin^ififing badge be-
tween them who were Gods people , and the reft" of the
world 3 fo is Baptifme now? all wfab arc not belonging to

the

1 66 Infant'Baftifme fr$vedfrcm Scripture.

the Churchy (the folemn way of entrance whereinto is ac-
knowledged to be by Baptilhie) are faid to bee v/idioiic,
I Cor, 5.12. Ctrcumcifion was to be but \0r2cc adrftmiflredy
nor Baptifme any oftner, as I have largely prov^^ before,
in anfwer to your 4 Se[i. Part 4. None might eate the Paffe-
ov^r till they were circumci^d, Exod.tz, nor of any to bee
admitted to the Lords S upper ^ ?i// /^ey be baptized^ as appears
^t^/2.41342. And throughout the whole Story of the
NewTellament, all examples are tor it, not one again ft it,
and the reafon isplaine, because none might partake of the
Lords Supper, but luch as were in vifible Comniunion^and
your iclfe know and grant, that Baptifiiie is the doore and
cHtrance of our folemne admittance into vifible comni|ini-
[ on, rvee are by'Bjftifmd (fay you) according to ChrifiMmpi'

tution eoihihited mtmhers ufChriji and his Churchy Exercit\p.^o,
Exerc.p.30. Thefe parallels you fee are made by the Spirit of God , and
your exceptions againft the comparifons between them, or
Mr.Tomke/cx- rather your adding of more comparifons, £militudes, and
ccptions an- dillimilitudes becw^een them, by them to d eftroy theie, are
Twercd, {tich as arifefromtht diverfe admtniftration oftbe C ovenant ^zx\A

d® indeed manifeft that they belong to feverall adminiftra-
tions, but doe not prove that they had not the fame gene-
ral fl:ate,(ignitication and ure,as Sacraments, which feale the
Tame thing in their diverle adminidrationsiChrill to come^
and Chrift already come, is the cauie of difference of ad-
miniftration, and fb of Ordinances , but hinders not the
fuccclfion of one ordinance into the place of another, and
therefore all thofe differences hinder not the inference of
the one from the other. As for your exceptions, 1 hat Cur-
cumcifioH did csnftrnie the promifi made to Ahrabamj naturaU pth-
fieritie concerning their mitltip^ing^ bringing out BfEgjpt^ the
J'oal{e efthtLarp of MofeSy fit ling in Canaan^&c, I anfwer, if
this were granted, it hurts not me, thefe things concerning
the manner of admhiiftration of the Covenant. Secondly,
howprove you this which you fay? Thirdly, did circum-
cifion confirme thefe things to all Abrahams naturall poiie-
riticHvasthc pofieritie of i/»we/ and Ejau to come out of
£^';>/;pofleflc Canaa?!^ bee yoakcd with the Law?- Fourth-
ly,

Ufam^Baptifrntf^evedfrom Scripture. 167

iy^ what is theienie ofthefe words, Circumcifion confir-
med the yoake of the Law> it was indeed a part of the
yoake^ and obliged a perfon toit.Secondly^ to that ofrpomens
being not ciratmcijed^afid children under eigkt dayes old^ I have
at large fpoke to them in the firft Se£^ion of this third part.
Thirdly, the catechmini/:, though they were members, yet
they were not received into vifible and Sacramentall com-
munion of the Lords Suppc«-till baptized- the cafe of the I(-
raelites travelling in the wildernelle was an extraordinary
one. Fourthly, for that which you except againftCir-
cuniciiion being a difiingnifiing badge ^ becaufe other j were
Gods fcrvants who had not this badge ; I anfwer, that of
Melchij^dech^^ Lot^ &c. was anfwered brfore : beiide, may.
not a livery bee a dirtinguKhing mark of fiich a mans
fervant, and yet haply every fcrvant not under the livery V
the Sabbath was a figne to Gods people, yet it may
bee you hold that all Gods people till Mojes did not
kcepe a Sabbath. Fiftly, and for what you adde that you Vnbaptized
tnak^^quefiion n^hetheran unhaptized perfon wight not eate the P^^^onsmay
Lords Supper ) thoughyouconfijfeyotsfinde no example vfit^ '''^'^ Sacrame^^^

nt or

that in I C*r. I0.2.3.4. and\ Cor, 12.I3. Baptizing ispmbe^ the Lords Sup-
fore eating and drinking j I reply^this I muft number among per.
your freakes, and out-leaps, and is a ipicc of your itch af-
ter lingular opinions,and inconfiftcnt even with your own
errant, that Baptifme ^ the n^ay and manner of fokmne adm'rfjion
into the Chuteh^ and that nothing h to bge done about the Sacra--
ments^ fphtreof'me have not either injiitmion or example^ and yet
here for oppofitionsfeke you will allow men to come to
the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, though unbapti2ed,
and I thinke it never yet was a queflion in the Church
whether an unbaptized perfon might receive the Lords Sup-
per . but fay yon, tiifefe and a hundred man cannot tnah^ ft
other then a humane invention^ if the holy Ghofi doe not fhew that \
they agree in this particular ofBaptifLtng as rveU sx Circumcifing
of Infants, I anfwer, but when thefe Arguments and paral-
lels made by God himfelfe, are added to the parity of Jewes
and Chriftian TnfantSj in being comprehended with their
Parcnti in the Covenant which is to be fealedp it^s a vitin^

0U

1 53 infaHt'Bdptifme proved frem Scripture.

all warranti it's not meere analogy we reaion from, for wee
have acommand to Baptize, and wee have the competency
of infants to receive baptilnie liifficiently proved ehe-
where, your felk grant right to Baftifme arija from the
prefej7tfiAte of a ptrfin ^ and therefore wee apply this
leale, which fucceeds that feale, to our Infants which
fucceed their Infants, in the priviledge of being f^d^rati
with their Parents, there being not tlie leaft hint in -the
word, that they (liould be left out.
Comp.ulfon To flurre this Argument from Cireuniciiion to Baptifhie
of Pncfts, and yQ^ frame i^/^r^g and needlejfe compdrifon ktween tha Fricfij
blmlX^'in by of old mder the Jewrfi admimfiratiorr^ and the /l^imjierjofthe
■Mrjombes, Gofpd mw^ and joH demand^ art M'tnijiers thin) ore VrUfiyi
2iX\d (hew hon^mjnyabfarditiej 4jid danger ous eonftjaencej wiU
follow if xvee give rvjiy to fuck kind of CDmparijonJj hence the
Pjpift J have pleaded for an tmiverfall Bifhop^ and the Tnlates
To no pur- firfitperioritieofMimfterj,

pofe, Afhortanfwerwillferve all this, you demand xvhether

therefore Miniders be Pricfls, and fo mak^ fimile to be idem

againft all fen^ and reafon, as if I had gone about to prove

Baptifinetobe Ciraimcifion. Secondly, wee onely apply

things let up by God bimfelfe^ and make the parallel! as God

hath mack it, when any can prove that God hath fet up an

univerfal Blfibop, or appointed fuperioritic ofMinifters one

above another, and Iiath made flich parallels betiveen theni

as you (peakeof, let them plead thofe comparifbns and

fparenot, they had in their minifrery many things which

were typicall of Chrift, which we have nothing to do with,

but in other things where the Scriptiii^e hath made aeom-

' parifon, wee may doc it fafely, and may plead from the

one to the other, as that they mftftbave a call to their i>ffice^{o

raiift n'fe^they that Ccrve the altar mitfi lize tfpon the Altar ^ fb

they who preach the Goipell are to live upon the Gofpek they

niuft bespHre xrho hare the veffds of the faa&uarj/, and the

7rieftslipJmuftpreferve^norpledge^ fo our Minifiers muft be

oi hQlyiifeyfit toteach:,&c. And all this wee may plead by

^^^Qr'umci- ^^^ Warrant ; and whereas I added in my Sermon that our

it^and bapri- if^rdt aught Mtbif ^j kif o^netXampk (m<. thai Ciicu/nci-

'xej. ''. fio*

Bon initiated inco that adniiniftratiotij and Baptiftrte into
this) larbowsfCir^^afeiiM aprtfeff^d member of the Jewet
'■Chtrch^ and vphvil^afit up the CbrJfiianChurch^ bet yo.mld bee
initiated into it by the Sacramem of Baptijme., herciipan you
runne into divers things, as vpky Chrifi ivou d bee CircMmciJed^
trhy Bapfiz/tdy and in vch^fmft Cbriji' n^ben he vpo! to be bap"
tizjed^ faid thdt hie vootdd he baptixgd 'that hie. might fulfill all
righteOHfueffe^butyoH thinke it mt prohabUyibjt it rv^ any part of
hpf meaning to be initiated into the Chrifiian Church by hapiifm?^
the Chrifiian Church jvai noiyetfet ffpyivith voorjbip & dtjcipline
• dipinB from the hvptjhyand hecaHJehn Baptifme vrot of a higher
nature then mr Eaptifme-j I rcply^thatth^Chriftian Church
was not fully fet upland compleatcd with all Ordinances of
worlhip, governmenta officers till afterward^ is readily
granted^ but that it was not in^ri^in erecting and framing,
and-tiut Baptiihie was adminiftrcd in referciKe to the
Chriftian Church, and that by Baptifmemen were initi*
ated into tliis new adminiftration or bcft edition of the
Church, I diinke no found Divine did ever queft ion. I
grant Chriffs Baptifme was a tranlccndent one, and differs
fromowrsin manything«, and fb was his Gircumcilion
alfo a transcendent one, and differed from the Jewes in
many things; can you thence frame an Argument that hec
intended not by his conformity to our Ordinances, to ex-
prefle the iarae favour to us as he did to the Jewc« in con- '
forming to their Ordinanccs^but that you fhould hence fetch
anArgument,thatbecauieChrift was not baptized till hee
was thirtic yeers old,( which was within lefle then thirtic
weekes after Baptifhie was made a Sacrament) is I confeflc
a moft transcendent ftraine of wic>yct you boaft of it, as if
by it you had broke one of the firings I have to my bow#

And proceed to try, whether you cannot crack the other coKj.S 9,10,
alfo, ihetviden^nhicbColofii.^.&c, gives to prove Bap^ 1 1. Vihdicarcd,
tijme toJucc€ei in the roonH ofCircumcifioB : but before you fo prove Bap.
come to the examination of this place, you make enquiry f'^n^f rofac-
iwjr^j/ye/j/e Baptifme [moceeds im the roome of Circumcipon^ ^Itotu '^^""^
and you firft obftrve that in (peaking cxaftl}^, Baptifme w(K
a concomitant of CirsHmeifim^ if rm amientcr^ tbM it n^at in ^

Z ufc , .

157<>

Baprifnx in
cfc in the
Church of the
J ewes, and ap-
plied to In-
fants as well as
gFOwnc men.

Ffored from

hfdMt-BapffJwe frwed (rcmScriptHrf.

ff$ amotjg tbi Jims for man) jeers together tutth Circumcifim^
th)Hgh not Of a Sacramem 5 and for this jou cite the learned
Gendcman Mr. Selden^ and Mr. Ainftvortb on Gen, 17, and
Mr. Ligbtfootej Elias KedivivHi : I confeflcj you arc in the
rights Bap tifme was aknowne rite hi the Jcwifli Church
longbeforcit wasmade a Sacrament, and therefore when
Johnczmc baptiiing, none of the Jewes were ignorant of
the u/eof Baptifine, they never asked him what he meant
by bapti2ing, they knew well enough that it was a rite ufed
in admitting of Pro(eIytes or new Convens into the
Church, they onely wondredj why hee did Baptize if hee
were not the Mefliah.But Sir, this exception of yours is fo
farrc from being any argument againft mee, that it affords
me a good argument for Infant- Eaptifme, because the fame
authors, which mention this as an Ecclcfiafticall rite, in
admiffion of Pro(elytes,doe teiUfie that the Infants of Pro-
fclytcs were bapti2ed as well as circumcifed, and wherelb*
ever Circumciiion was applycd, Baptifme went along with
it, fb that the ufe of Baptifme was the fame- before^ v'lz^
to bee a rite of admitting growne men and Infants into the
Church, onely it begun to bee a Sacrament of divine in-
ftitution, when M» wasfentto Baptize into the name of
Chriih andirisin this Sacrament as in the other Sacra-
nient of the Lords Supper, tht pj^iihmdiBuf:, and the cup
were u(ed before in the Sacrament of the Pafleover, as an
Eeclefiafticall rite, but our Lord at the laft Pafleover, infti-
tuted the bread and wine to bee Sacramtntdll Elements,
which before were only an Ecj/e/zi/^ir^i^rite^now feeing that
Baptifine which was in ulcbeforcj was onely turned jfito a
Sacramentall ufe,to (iicceed Circumciiion ,with whom be-
fore it was a concomitant , and alwayes applyed to the fame
perfons. Have you not helped us to a good Argument, that
Baptifme belongs to Infants as well as grown men^e/pecial-
Jjj^iince there is not the leaft hint given in the Word,that
when it was thus advanced to bee a Sacrament, it (houldaot
bee applyed to thofe peribns to whom before it was, viz.
Infants as well as growne men? the truth of thi?, that i(
wasfo, may appeal epaitly by Mr. SMa who te^i^^^ that

the

Ififimt-BApifmfrtV€4frmS€fift9^^^ ,yj

the Itifents of the Gentiles were made proieijrtes by this
rice among othera, both the male children and thrfemak-
fo likcwiie Maimmides [Ijjurei hiah^ Cap. 13.) tdJs ii^ fy Maimomdcf.
three things Ifrael entred int9 CovenoTity hy Cmumci^on^ bf Eap^
iifmey and offering, and that Bspifim vpck intht fVildermfe hi^
Jere the giving of the La^^ ^ it if/aid, A»d thou pah Jan6ijfie
ihem to day and to morroVP^ and kt ihem najh their garment j\
and in another place^ when a Gentile will inter into the Cove^ t\TWT7
nanty and gather himfelfe tmdtr the wings af the Divine majifly^
bee mnfi he Circumcifidy Baptiz/edy and bring an fffferim^^ if it hee
a fimaUy baftifim and offerings and againe, a Troftlyte that it
circHmcifedand not haftizedyOr baptized and not circumcijedy it
not a Frojeljtey untiU hethee both circnmcifed and baptized-^ and
tLgzineyalittlcFrofefyteythey bapii^i bj the appointment of the
Confifftt, There arealioipcciaUteftiniofiics in the Talmud^ TheTaim J
which dedarcj that Infants both of letves and Gentiles^ rvert
thut admitted f the male children by cireumcifion and ^aptifmey
thefimalej hj baptifhte^&e. Many teftimonics of this nature
to ftiew that Infants as well as growne jpcn, were bapti-
zed among the Jewes are to be feene in Mr. Ainfivorth upon
Gen.ij.verf 1 1, 1 3. I was willing to give this little taftcj
that the Reader may fte^ that baptiHne ever fince it was in
ufcj was applyable to children as well a? growne men. You
^ddcyeven the Sacrament of Baftifme tpos before circumcijion
ceaftely andyou inflame with Johns Baptifmcy vphichwas a eon"
comitant Sacrament mih the Sacrament of cireumcifion '^ I an-
iwer as before, /<7i^J Baptifine and Miniftery,was a Pralu- JohnfBzptlCmt
flfi«w» to Chrift, and was wholly in reference to the Chri- '""'^^^'^'^f**
ftian Church, which then begun to bee moulded 5 and g^^.^il'^'*** ^
though there was not a new dilUnS Church of Chriftia-
nitie (et up, yet all this was preparing the mater iails of it>
and Joifwi did not admit them by Baptiifne, as members to
thcJewi(hF^</dtg<7^^3 which was then ready to bee taken
away, but into that new adminiftration which was then in
preparing, but this is no argument againft baptlfme tofeo
cecd circumcifionj as a Lord Major cleft fiiccecdsthe old,
though the old continue after hiselefUon for a time. Yet
farther, 7 oh in^juin in T^baffrfff BaptifmefHCCeeds to the n>»me

Z a and

4fi IjifMnf'Bdftifmefrfi^ed'frmSi^rf^

lAr.Tmbet Ex- ^pl^f ofCwcumcifimyajidfy if by roome and placi^ i mtan'e^

€€p»ions. loQii communis ct propriuSj fo Baptifme being an aBion,

hathmroome orplaceat aU proj^eriy: andtfbyromie andflace I

meant tkbatiizedandbaptizirSj ihstis true but in party feme

TvhoTf^ere toiehafiized twere im id bee circvmdfed^ as rvomen.

Thirdly^ if by r^tme andplact 1 meane the fame fociety^ that if not

trtte^ CircHmcifien admitted into the Jemf^y bapHjmi imo the

Chriftian Chnrcb, FoHrtbly^ if of the CPmmandement pfoh nhich

k^h art fealtdy thai u net tnte neithify Circumcijion n^as com"

mandd long before Baptifme. Fiftlyjf of the faim ufe^ that if

mofnntrHty fffrtbettjk ofCircumcifim obhgtd to kiepe the Lan>y

to be a partition betrvem lerpej aad Gentilejy and to initiate into

the letpip Chnrch, or ratbtr into Abrahams famVy, Then laftly

you (ay, i£l meane it ofconfirmingaKdffaling the fame Cove-

nanty veither is that true fave en fly in party beCaufe timr Cove-'

nant v^ as a mixt Covenant y snd although Circumcifion did con^

firme righeoufheffff by fait by andfigrdfitd bolinejfe of hearty fo a Ifo

did the Cloudy Sea^ Mannay the Koch^ the Vehge or Jirke : and

the fame are slffcon^rntedhy the Lords Supper y and therefore to

fay thai Baptifim fucceeds in the roome atid place of Cirmmci^

fiony is apcfttionemnefHSitndvBry danger ow.

Anfti>, ^ am prone to thinke that time as well as p;^cr and

Inke are very chcape With you ^ who thus rtfecdlefly

ivafte them j this poore quibblmg about fticcefllon and

roomc;, placcj&c^ is too PedanticaJl for a grave Divinc^what

Reader will not at the firft view (ee this to bee my meaning,

of Baptifme liicceeding in the roome and place of Ciraini-

cifion, thzt Baptifime Ju'ccudj Circumcifion as a figne fubfiitu*

tedy in the place and f^tad of Circum^Afion^ to fgntfie and fealt

the fameCovenant of grace which Cirtamcifion didy Circumci-

cilion more darkely fealing, Chrift being not yet exhibited,

baptifme more clearcly, the fliadow being taken aw^y and

theiabfiance come?&aJiBoft all your diifcrences refer onely

to the (everall manners of adminiftration of theCovenant,

lEx e • "*^^ ^^ Covenant it felfe, or thing admlniftrijd, yet

dcfervcfno" ^ ^^^ ^^^^^ "P^" ^^^ particular, Fii'ft, yOur fafncy of Lo-

Anfw'cr. ^^ propriut & communis y is too idle to require any an(wer.

Secondly, that of the hmjb rponten h«th been fiifficiently

(poken

(pokcntoihthe:firft&^ion of this third jart. Thirdly^ i Exce prion
when you fyyyCirCHmcifion admitted into (meCimrch^ haptifme ^"twcr'V be-
into anotbef'^dl ani very^loath to impatc to your fenfc which a^EJ^ceptlon
you intend aot) if you meaneonely the ftveraU admmjtra^ anfucrcd.
tionj^i the Church of the Jcw^is being Chrifts Church un-
der one adminlflrdtioUj the Chriftian Church the fame
Church of Ghrift under another adminilh'ation ; you
{peake truth, but nottopurpoft, my conclufion never faid,
CircumciiionandBaptiunedoe initiate into the fame Ad-
niirtiftr^tion of the Covenant: but ifyou nieane, that the
Church of the Jewes and wee are not one and the
lame Church, you Ipeake pure Anabaptilliie indeed^ and
contr^dift the Scripture cxprefly 9 which every where
makes the Church of the Jewes and the Geiniles, one and
the fame Church^though under divers adminiftrations. I
count it needlcfle to annex any proofe?, becaufe I thinke
you dare not deny it. Fourthly^ you fay the command of ^y,^cvHon
eircumcifioa wM longhefiretbe command of Bap$ifme^ butliow anfwered,
this followcs that therefore Baptiftie doth not fucceed in
the roome of Circumciiion I cannot guefle, the Lords day
fuccceds diefeventhdayin being Gods Sabbath, but cer-
tainly the inflitution of it was long after the other. And
(i(tly^;is£orthcf€veralitifij mentiotted hyyou^ they all referre l^^^^^l^^
to the manner of adminiftration peculiar to the Jewes 5 1
have often granted there were fbme legall ufo of CircHm-
cifion it obliging to that manner of adminiftration, and ft)
they werepart of the Jcwifti paedagogy, which is wholly
vaniftied, and therein Circumcifion hath no fiicceflion, but
baptiftnc fticcccds it as a Scale of the fame Covenant imder a
better adminiftration,a5a'fe:and conftant initiating Ordi-
dinance: onely I wonder that you fay, Circunicition did
iaitiJie into tUGbnrcb of ib9 leofesy or rather into Abtabams JA"
miiy ; I pray you explainc this, rather into AbroHamsfa"
mliyh if by Mrahams izsmiy you meane the Church of the
Jewes, why lay you ratbit into Abrahams family ? if you
nieanc anything elft, tdH us what it is, andhow Circum-
cumcifion initiated Proiclytcs into Abrahams fiimily any
otlierwifcthcnas it was the Church of the Jewes. Laftly,

Z 3 you

^4 Inf^t'i^Jttfmefrmdfui^m Smprnt.

$ S^ep. Anfiv, jou hit upon theTightAing intended, Ti^ bt h9ib fealej of
fb€ farm, cuvtnAnU^ hut (fay you) the covenant rt>ar not the famcj
exctpt in part^'which hath abundantly been confuted before,
and juftified to be one and the famcand the difference to lit
cncly in the manner of adminiftration.
7 £x:ef, Aafw, Bat fay yoiyhe Cloud^Sta^Mama^ivaUr of the rocl{.^&c.fi^
nified rigbteoHfmJfe hj jaitb^ and holinejfe ef heart , as wcU of
bapt'ipnc doib'^ and rrhy then JboHldtremt fay that Bsptifm fnc-
ceedsihtfe^ at rvell as it doth Circftmcifion} lanfwerjthefe
were extraordinary figncs, not ftanding Sacraments to bee
ufed in all generations, much lefle were they iet and tran-
ding Sacraments of initiation : And yet fo farre as God
hath made the parallel^what hurt is therein (aying baptifm
I Pet. 3 . t X . fucceeds them \ iurc I am, the Apoftle Pettr compares bap-
tifm and the Ark, the like fiffire nhertunta Baf^ifmcjaveiftf,
S Ex$ep » Anfrtf' But whereas you adde, ^»d why alfo fbouU not the Lsrdi
Supper Jk-ccetd CirCttmcifion as vpeU as B^pifme'l I aniwer,
what ever diiparity may bee ;nadc betwecncCircuracilion
andBaptifme, yet herein certainly they agree, and you of-
ten grant it. That both of them are initiaUpgms ; and there-
foi'c this is moft wildly faid of you. That the LerJs Supper
may he as rvell faid to fucceed CircHmcifion.dld ever any thinke
the Lords Supper to be an initiall jfigne? And now let the
Header judg of that expreffion of yours in th^^lofe, which
you ib boldly ufe againll all Divines and Churches (ince the
Apoftlcs time, who allconcurre in the ianic truth, ^except
onely the Anabaptiits) That to fay Bjpti/mie fncceedj in the
roome and place of Circumcifion^ is a propofnion erroneous^ and
zery dangerous, >)',[. .

Toconfirmetliisof Baptifin fucceeding Ciraimcilion,
much may be gathered out of many places In the New Te-
(lament, which hold out the things wherein they are paral-
leled : I ufed onely that clear place, CoL 2. 8. to 1 3. whence
I made it evident. Not onely that n?# have the fame thin^ figni^
fed Irf Cirtumciforiy while we are httryed nfith Clmf in baptifm^
^'cr tion a- ^a« alfi that the Apofile plainly ftj Biptifme in the' fame flate^
gainft Gfl/*r.. 2« ^^ mak^i it efihe fume ufe to w^ as CircHmcifkm nm to the
tnfwtrcd. Jev}?s^^ Cbrifi onelj to them and us alfi^ if the amibor (f jpirituaU

circumr

Uftmt-BaftifmeprMtdfr0mS(riftitre. ryy

Ckctimifon, TheCkaimcifion oftf/efiefhj wm the SaCra^
menJtofit to ibtm ; Mnd ntiW that it ahelifitdt xre have haftifmt
to feale the fame thing.

Let us fee what your exoepdoas are ajzainft ir, Fiv f^yfoM
ack^awkdgewubme^ihc yJpofiles Jcope is to foew that n^et are
€ompleat in Cbri^, and therefore needed not Circumdfiun : And
you addejhis/cci^e wat not to teach them that we have another
ordinance inftead of Circumcifi§n^ I reply, it is very true, he
leaches them wee arc compIeatinChrift, and n«cd not
CiiTcuniciiion; but it is as true, that he further enlarges this
comfort^by (hewing them that we have a vilible (eale of this
compleatnefle in Chrift, and Co it is more evident wee have
no need of Circumcifion .

Secondly, fay you, Aretius in hi^ Csmmentaty Jajtei^ That Aretm alled-
tJ^ thing itfelfe it affertedto the Saints^ without an outv^ardjym' Bf^ ^^ ^^
holeywhiehjet the adverjariejincejfantlj urged' andfor\«^ich |^^,^' who is ^^
jiretius his helpe, y^« conclude it if utterly agzm^ the Apojiks cxprdTcly a-
whole ar^ment^ to fay ^ that they needed not Circumcifiony kcattfe ga^nrt him.
they hdd another ordinance in the room ofit.But Sir,why do you
thus frequently abufe your readers with the names of Lear-
ned men , inferting iome onefehtence of theirs into your
book,and thereby infinuating to your Readerjthat they are
of yom' Opinion in the point wherein you cite them?I aiTurc
youjit concenies your Confcienc?, as well asyour Caulc^to
be thus often taken tardy. The Learned Aretius in that ve-
ry place where you cite him acknowledges indeed, That ws
mre compkat in Chrifty without an externall Jymboleh and thai he
ifsperfe&organofeur Jalvation^ you needed to have cited
no man for this, we all conavre with you in it; the onely
thing controverted is, whether the Apoftle intend al(b in
this place to d^tWithat our haptijmJHcceedt in the room and ufe ef
Ciratmcifion'y and doth not Aretim concurrcin this?let him-
ielf ^eak lOi'jervert^r e^iam fuccefjio B aptifmi iu locum Circutrt-
cifi0nify quand* aferte bune vocat CircHmcijiotttm Christ : Hee
plainly tells us, that the Apoftle calls Baptifmfthe Circnmep-
fionofChrijl. But fince you have put mc upon Areti^r, I
(hall make bold to inform the Reader, that tiic fame Aretnte
m his Problemes^ a&er the Hiftory of V^hntint (kntilie ,

hath

176

Ancient Au-
thors cited by
AretiMto
pi&ve that
Baptifmruc-
cccds Circiim-
cifion.
Jkfiin Martyr
coH:raTrj/ph,

A than, in Luc,

cmJa mi hi tra-
dita»

Epiphm, €ontr<

Bpicureos,

Idein.contH'Ce-
rinthnm.

Aug inEpiJi,

InEpifi.ad

Dardaru'Ti.

. Infdnt'Boftifmlfr^^idfrtnn Serif ture.

JiathanintircDifcoiirre to prove that Baptilmeiuccecdt
Ciraimcifion, aadbrings thisTecond of the CoL there alfi^
at a maim evickace-^ d.nd cites m^ny notable teftimonies oiit
of the Fathers, both Greek and Latinc, for the confirmati-
on of it.

Accepimus non iUam fecundumcarmm circ^amd^onent^fedfpi"
rituakm^^HamEmcb & pmilts cufiodisrtmt^ mj tamttt per hap'
tifnmm accepimus , ' <

Circumctfio fg^rs erai exuvisrum cftt£ per hdpnfmum dep^
tmntur,

Abraham fi^i Deo ereduierat circumciponem aecepit pre not a
ejuf regentrati(misqu£ pirbaptifmHmcor^citur,

micfuitcjrcHmcifioearnalisqrus injtrvit Umpori adman
gnam drcumcifinum^ h, e, Bapt, qui circumcidii noj a pecta- '
its & obfiguat TiotV^.

Vuravit circumcifie tempore infervlenS do?2ec major circumcifio
acCejJit^h, e. lavacrum regeneration^*

AfirmatChrifiumin ecclefia fud d€di£epro cirCHm:i[ione
carrnfyBaptiJmum, -i i*y^^- »•'

'Saptifmi & circumei^nU ejufdemeft natura.

All thefe the Reader (hall ^ndt in Aretiw^ whom yoa
bring in, as ifhe concurred with youj.nioft of thefe tefti-
monies are before alfo alledged by me. . < '

Thirdly^ but you goc on and fay, Tht in trmh it would
evacuate the ApofileJ argument H[.d bothbtre^ und Hebr. p. 1 1 .
p- 1 3 ♦ rvho flill provej the abolition of the ceremoniej ef the LarVf
becaufe we are compleai in Qbrifi-, not in fomt new tfrdrnancei
addedinfieadof them \ for if there bee need of other Oidimanm
ceSy (befidts Cbrift) infleadofthe old^ then Cbrifi himfelf hath
not fulnejje enough y and though mr Ordinances mAy Ue Jfaid to
imitate theirs-^ yet C hri^ onely fucceedj them,

I anfwer, it is very true, that whoever (hould plead that
we have any of oar compleatnefi in any outward Ordinan-
ces would evaaiate the Apoftlcs Argument. But Sir, is there
no drftin6Uonto be made betwixt our c$mpLatmfft in Chrif},
and Ordinances which by his own appointment helpe us to
apply this compleatnelTc: doe the Sacraments of Baptifmc
and the Lords Suppec, and other Chriftian Ordinances

hin-

infdnt-Bitftifmefr&vedfrimScripime, 177

hSiderjor argue that all our compleatneflc h not in Chrift,
I adde liirtiier, that Chrift onely fuccceds all the Jcwifh or-
dinances, as the body liiccceds the (hadow: we plead not as
thePapi^s doe, that the Jewifti Sacraments were types of
ours, they were types onely of Chriftj but yet oots fiicceed
them to be like ligncs of the Covenant of grace^ and fo the
Apoftle doth in this place.

Fourthly, lay you^ I denjf im hut there is an analogy hetPfixi ^'«^ J^ivtufw
haptifme and circHmcifion^ Of thereif alfo betwixt the Ark^ and^^^*^^*
Baptifme 5 hut we are m't to cmdude thence^ that Baftifme Juc"
ceeds in the room and ufe of Noahs Ark^^ &c, for in the aJmini"
ft ration of an Ordinance^ we ate not to bee mkdhj bare analogic
framed by our f elves ^ er delivered by the Spirit of God^but bf tht
inftitHtion of God, I an fwer, but when thofe analogies fra-
med by the Spirit of God^ are agreeable to the ufe and end
of Gods inftitutiouj we are to bee ruled by them; and the
Apoftle (hews that^s our cafe here.

Fifthtyjfayyou, T^e-^/)^jJ/e in this place rathtr refimbles
bfsriallto circHmciponthen bapiijme : and fo makes the analogit
between circtfmcifion and Ckrifts bHriaH-^znd you bring in Chry*
fofiome and IheophylaS con€Hrrtng withy ou, I anlwer, this I
wonder at, where is Circumcifion compared to burlall,and
wherein I pray you lyes the analogic between tliem? Be-
fides, whoever will look into this Text, fhallfinde that this
(pirituall circumciiion containes both our death to fin, and
riiing again to ncwnefle of life, by the death and rclurre-
ftion ot Jefus Chrift, both which are here fuUy fignified in
our baptifine, ver. II. & 12. cmjepulti fumiAs ; the analogy
lyes plain between our buryall and baptifme. And Chryfi*
ftome whom you cite, faith plainly, wee are fpiritualiy cir-
cumcised,^///jv^^tf ^jw^ where-^ atid^nfwersinBaptifmo*

Sixthly, fay you, Cz>c«?wci/?5» rvat not onely a priviledge ts Chryaa^fjie d-
the JewSy hut it was alfo a burthen to thetn^and it would be a bur' red by Mr,
then^?iot a priviledge^ to have an ordinance in the roome and ufeTo'jibesy\%^-\
of it, I anfwer, Circumcifion was a burthen, as it was a S*^^ ^^^
painfiiU Sacrament,and as it obliged them to that painfully
coftly and burthenfomc manner of the adminiftration of
the Covenant, which was before Chrifls incarnation y but

A a n

Ufant'3^ftifme fr9^edft$m Scrifttire]

^^ ll v^as iio burdeiij but a great privaedgc, as it was a (ealc of

the Covenant* And in this laft reipcft onely is baptiTm fab-
ftituted into his room and place, „ ^ ,

IntheclofeofthisSeftionj I hkc your fareweII,though
Mr. Tom^fjhis ^^ ^^^ ^^ ^ lyj?et«fe rpitb more Confidence then truth 5 1 [aid
bap^ifmTs there had^een no reafon to b^e named haptifmeM that hemesnt
there na«ed, tofhetv haptifme noi now to Chrifiians m the room 0} circumcifi^ ^
coi^rmes my f^f^f^the Ji^eJl YouOLy^baptifrntiinamed^heeaHfe it is one of
inrerptetatioa. ^^^ f/teaneshy which Chriftians come to have cemtpunion mth
Chfiftj <ind to be eomfkai in hint-^ vphich n-of the thing the Apofik
intendedinthe 1 2. xtvCt. And therefore faith is joyhedn^ith it ^thty
hnni, the twofieci^U means nfherei'y we have 9ur eommtmion mth
Cbrift^^to whichyoHadde^ Gal 5.25526. Kom. 6. 3,&4- But
is not this the fame fenfe with mine, who have hitherto un-
dertaken to juftifie that, though our compIeatnefTc ht in
Chrift onely^ who is now exhibited, and no longer to bee
fought in the types and (hadows of the Jewifh adminiftrati-
on^Cto which manner of adminiftrations Circumcifion did
oblige themj) yet Baptifm is now the feal of our initiation,
and a meanes to apply this Covenant to us, as Circumcifion
wasto them, though the manner of their adminiftration
be wholly ceafed. If I have not taken you right, make a
iyllogifme, and make all Logick quake before your mighty
confequcnce. Baptifme is named, becaufe it is one of the
meanes of Chriftians being exempted from the Schoolma-
iler, and come to be ingraffed into Chrift, and to bcecom-
pleat in him^therefore it doth not fucceed in the roomeand
place of Circumcifion: nay, rather, it therefore doth. I
pray you put together thcfe words, T* are eemfkat inChrifi^
infPbomyearealjo cireumcifedy king bury ed with him in hap-
tifme j and fee if it fpeake not tliis^ plainetyj that baptifrac
fuccecds into the ufe of Circumcifion : &rely, it hence ap-
pcarcb Circumcifion and Baptifine arc nearer of kin then
you would make them*

In the clofe of this Se^ion, according to your wonted

manner, you triumph, and tell me that you have at lift wa-

did through tbi^cmchpon^ andthetext^ Col, 2, 12. & 10. the

vtifmd^r^anding offfbicbhatb beentkigm%hmhf^ol'fhfire^

■ whiS

vMch hatb led men out of the vP(t^ in thU matter^ tntobsgf. Tru-
ly Sir^wcre thcfe (corns of being led by tboJifti fire into bogs,
&c caft upon my fclfc onely , it were nothing; but when
they are thus caft in the faces of all Divines, ancient,
and modern^ all Harmonics and Confcffions (except onely
ahandfiillof upftartAnabaptills) asif they were all luchi
fimple oneSj that aa igfji* fatftHfy a fooles tire 5 might lead
them into any bogs^ I can hardly forbeane to tell you it is
an argument of an arroganc Spirit.

There is alfb in the end of your bo okc, a fhort difcourfe The deTcant of
upon this Text, which I read over to lee if there were any Mr. Tombe/
thing which might weaken my Argument, or ftrengthen up'^n rhis Teo«:
your exceptions j but in it I finde not any one fentcnce that ^-sb^ok brief-
hurts mcjor helps youjonly Ibme ofthoic things which you ly eximiied,
call di(9;atcs5 bold aflertions^ Ibme of them contrary to the
plain Text of Scripture, all of them raagifterially fet down
without proof: ^s^circumeifion rpm not a tok^ of the Covenant
to the lews cbildrtn'-iyNhidx is contrary to the very Text, Gen,
17. That the promifis of the Covenanty were not the reafin that
the) vPite circumcifsd. Yet any Reader may fee that the Cove-
nantis there fet downe as the reafon why they lliould bee
circumcifed, Thsitt he Je^rs children n> ere not therefore in cove^
nant^becaftfe thj vpeft Abrahams natur all feed ^ thjt heleeverf
children are not in covefunty htcafije hekeVers children', and di-
vers other Conclufions of the lame nature, which arc al-
ready anlweredj and therefore I (hall not ft ay the Reader
any whit about them.

Hitherto I have followed you foot by foot , bccaule the
gaining or loling the caufe, depends upon thele former con-
clufions, thefam,m£e of the Govenant both to Jews and Gen^
tihSythef(fmtTieffeofmr Infants right to ths Covenant with
theirs j 3indbaptifme fitcceedingchrcHmcifiony as to the ufeof
an iaitiall (eale to them who are in Covenant- In that
whick renuines, I ftiall more coiTtra6i: the m itter of your
large Difcourfej par tly, becaufe many diings in it are upon
by-matters 5 partly^ becaufe chat which is material!, is
but the repctitljn of that which hath been anlwercd al-
ready.

A a. 2 My

♦9a mfanUBApifmef roved from Scripture,

My fourth Conelufion n^at^ That by Gods cvptie cxfnjft or-
tUr^ Infants as wtU of griflevne mm^ were in the time of the hn?es
to be initiated a?id fealed mth the fi^ne of cirmmcifion , whither
Jetvs ffy natnrf^ or Frofelj tes of the ^ entiles ^ om larv wen for them
all^ if they receive the covenant^ they and their children were cir-
cumcifed,
Co cIhC vin- This Conclufion you granttobetme;onely,becaureyou
dicared. wil fay Ibmewhat to every thingryou :m{\\'cr^FivO:^That it is

as certain that thk ^prejje ordyr of God ts 7iow repeakdhYcry true^
and you might have added_, That by his order likewifc,Bap-
tiftie fiicceeds in the room of it. I added, v.- hereas Come al-
Why Infants ledge. Though circuntcifion wai to he ap^lyed to their Infant j^yet
©f jcwcs' were' j^ j^as not af afeale of the fpiriiu all part of the Covenmt , hut as
eircumcifed. ^ JSIationallb^dge^ cr feale of fome temporall and earthly ^lejfmgs
andpriviledgejy as of the right to the land of Canaan, &c, and
that lihm^ei:, though he was circmncifd fir fome temporall re"
fpeUs^ was tJot thereby brought under the Covenant^ &c. You
anfwer, t-hey who thus ohjcityfpejl^e the truth: and here you rc-
ferre to your Latine Paper. I reply, ' to my underftandingj
you here fpeafe pure At labaptifnic indeed, juft JLke the;A-
nabaptirts in Gtrmany^vaho fay. The Covenant which eircum-
tijionfealedy n>as a carnaU covenant : and thai whm God com*
mandedthelfraelites to circumcife ihdr children^ wee are not to
underfiand that he obliged them to have their hearts circumcijed^
nor aimed at any thing which touched the inward manj that the
condition required by God in circumcijioK^ cannat bee drawne to a
fhirituall bujineffe-^ that the circumcifed by clrcumcifion'were not
houndtohokg for falvatianby JefusCbrifit how very neare
are you come tothele carnall conceits of the German Ana-
baptifts,which have been a thoufand times confuted by our
Orthodox Divines^ yet you bring not one (hadow of a
proofe for what you lay, or\c\y yeu alledge, Ifhmael had no
pan in the covenant ^ihe covenant w^ to beeefiahlijhed with IfaAe^
and not with IJbmad^ &c. But I have made it abundantly
cleare, that not onely Ifitnael and Efau^ but millions of j<j-
co^j feed, did never partake of the fpirituall graces of the
Covenant, yet were reckoned by circumcifion to belong to
the Covenant, and were obliged to fceke after the fpiritu-

al^

Infant'Baftifme^rioveci from Serif tmre. x8i

all part of it^ and whereas you (ay ^ w'^en IfhmMl vom circHm-^
cifedy Abriiham undtr flood the promife was not intended for
Ipmadhntfor Ijaac,that ip?mailomlyn>Ms to have Mpare infime
i^mporallllt^ffiftgj I I anl^^erjfiippofiiigthat were true, you
have given a very good inflance toprote that fome may re-
ceive the outward figne of the Covenant^ and have a vifibk
ftandingin the Church, though heewho adminifters the
Sealcj might by revelation know that the inward grace is
wanting. Secondly, I anfwer, how doe you prove tliat no
part of the (pirltua]! Covenant made with Abraham did ap-
peareto belong to 7/7^/wje/ when he was circumci(cd^ or not
to Efaii when hee was circumciied? God indeed did then de-
clare that Ijdac was he in whole family the Covenant fliould
continue^ but not a word that Ifhmad'iho\\\6, have no part
in it : prove (if you can^in your next that Ifimael and Efau
were n ot by their circumcifion bound to have their hearts
circumciled 3 and to belecve in the Mefliah that was to
come of ^^r^^w/ (eed. And whereas you fay^i againe and
zs,3.ine:)t bat no benefit of the Covenant rvas 1 be proper reafin why
ihefc or thofe tvert circumnfid^ hut o»eIy Gods precept : I have al-
ready cleared it out of the Text (jemfis 1 7.that though Goc}s
command was the caule of the exiftence of the dutie ofCir-
cumcifion^ yet the Covenant of grace was the motive to it,
and thefe two are well confiftent together.

Whereas I anfwcred to that carnall obje(!lion of the Ana-
captifts, that nothing is plainer then thai the Covenant rphere-
ofCircumcifion was a figne was the Covenant of grace ^ you re-
^h-^ firft^it was a mixt Covenant^ which is before taken away^,
inanfwerto your exceptions againft my fsk conduSon,
Se6^. 2.Part3. Secondly, you fay, all circumclfed ptrfons ^
were not partakers of the fpir'ttuaB part:, it's one thing to hee undt^r oramVwhuris
ik outward adritinift ration^ another thing to he under the Cove- incentrovtr-^
nam of Grace '^ Sir, I thanke you for this anfwcr, you grant ^^e.
as much as I have been proving all this while, viz. that men
may have a vifiblcmemberfhip though they bee not t\edi,tdi
and that there ever was and will be (bnie liich in the Church
to whom the outward adminiftration and external] privi-
ledges doc appertdne, though they are not inwardly (an-

A a 3 aiiied^

1 8 2 Infmt'Bdftifmi proved f rem Scripme.

^fic4 and I hope you -will not deny bat that thefe are
called, in that fenfe whi^h our Saviour meaneswhen hce
fayes, Afzny are caU€d:,hutftjv are chofen, I added Abraham re-
ciived CircH/niifinnafigmofthenghteonfreffenffaith: triif,
lay yo\ifitrcumcifi$n woi afeale of righteoujne^e^ but not to all er
mly circHiHcifidfirfons^hutto all hektvin^vphtber lews er Gentiles
though they n^verare or maj htfeakd in thir oron perfim, I reply,
firftjthis is but a peece of oddcDivinitic, that Circunicihon
fhouldfealerighteoufncflc to them who never are circum-
cifed^nor reputed fo^ nor capable of being circunicifcd, nor
might lawfully be circumciied^but let that pade. 2^r Indeed
none but belcevers have the fpirituali part of Circumcifion,
but vilible profefTors had a vifible right to it, and were ob-
jigedtoleeke the fpirituall grace of it, and though they
who arc externally called, and not ele^ed, never come to
attaine the Iplrituall part, yet are they in foro vipbilis Ec
c/^J?<e to be reputed Church members, and they have as Au^
jlinfdiiby virhatemfacramenti^theugff not fruBufft Sacramtnti^
they receive thetruth of the Sacrament, though they par-
take not of the beft part of it? ^ndthelen>es ((aid I) recei^
mdit mt ai a nationj^ut ai a Churchy as a people feparated from
the rvorld^and take^ into Covenant with Gody again ft which
yoii objcft, if Ital^i^af^jviihrediiplication^they received it nd^
(her Of a natioti^ nor at a Church : for if 06 a nation^ then every
nation mup have been circumcifedy if a a Cbircb^ then e-ary
CUtircbmnfi be circumcifed^ they received it as appointed them
'from God ^under thatformjUnoiion^t>$dn6cther,But'wh'a.t poore
exceptions are thefe? my plains meaning was, the Jewes
were both a civill Ibcietie or Common-wealth, they were
alfb a Church or a people in Covenant with God 3 Circum-
cifion Was given them in reference to their Church StatC;,not
in reference to their civill ftate, and was in ordine to the
tfeing"? of Gods kingdome,; and though the formall rea-
fbn of their being circumciied was the command of God,
yet the Covenant of grace or their Church ftate was the
motive to it, andthe thing it related to, as is moft cleare
out of the I'j.oiiOen'eJls and many other pkces where their
Gircumciiion dcnotates their religious ftanding, as hath
often been (hewed before. Bm

InfMHt'BAftijnH frcvedfnm Serif tme. 183

"But what haUthis^ fayyou> U ths anfrvering of the ehje&ion^
which npos^that Circumcifion vpas mi the Seale cf the jfiriinaU
fart 0fthe Covenant ofgraee^ to all cireumcifedferfinf^ and that
CircHmdfion wdt appointed toferfons not under the Covenanty&e,
I^nfwer^Ithinkeitvery fully anfwcrsthc objeftion, for
ifit was comnaanded and obferved, as that which was a
priviledge and dutie belonging to the Covenant, and they
ufcd it as being in Covenant, theobje^ion is wholly taken
off. Your frequent bringing in of the manner of admini-
ftration^by types, {hadowes,&c. hath been abundantly an-
£weredin my vindicating my firft concluiion,and eKcwhere.
Next you much troubley oar (elfe^ how I wili eleare that ex-
prepoH of mens conformity to temperall bleffingi and pumfiyments^
htcaufe hkjfmgs and pttftipments, are Gods a5ij and not tnms:
I deiire you to require an account of it from them who af-
lcrtic> I faid^ Circunuifonhowzdthem K^ho receivedit to conforms-
to that manner of admimftration of ihd Covenant n^hicbwasear-
rkdmmhhy axpay of temporal! ^lejjingj and ptinifhmentj^ they
^eing types of fpirituall thingi: is this all one to conformeto
temporall blellings and punifhments ? I added ^ no man can
pew, that any rvera to receive Circumcjfion in relation to thefe out--
rpard things onely^or to them at all, further then they were admi-
mftrationj of the Covenant of grace j you ;infwer^ they recei-
ved Circumcifion neither in relation to thefe oHtivard things onefy
no nor at ally either as they were tempor all bkpngs or types offpi-- Mr^Tombej by-
ritnaU things^ and fo adminifiratlons of the Covenant of grace^ confequcnce
hntforthisreafon and mother^ hecaufe ۤdhadfo commanded 'y ^.^"i^s circum-
I reply, here had beenethc fit place for you to have made c^'^° ^^^^ ^ '
good what you have fb confidently afferted heretofore ; ij^^g.^ ^^^
that IJhmaely Efan^ and others were circumciied for fome
tcmporallrdpe^fj that Circumcifion fealed the temporall
or politicdll promi/eSjSic, but in ftead of proving this^ you
, doe here as good as deny it, fok- if they were not circumci-
(ed, in any relpcftat all to their temporall bleiling«, how
I pray you did Circumcifion ieale their temporall bleffings>;
Nay fti ther, you by conftquent deny that Circumcifion
fcaled either teliporall or (pirituall blelTings, and confe^
quently it wasnofeale atalJj or a feafe of nothing at al]>

for.

V^4 InfanUB^pifme proved from Scripnre.

for if tliey were circiimcired with refpeft to nothing, but
onelybecaiifeGod commanded them to bee circuniciied,
how was Gireiuncifion any Scale to them? If a father give
a cjlild a Ring, and command him to weare it^ onely to
(hfevv his ofeedienct to' his fathers command^ what doth the
' wearing of this Ring iealetothe child? it declares indeed
the childes obedience to the father , but feals nothing to
the child from the father, Nor doth that which you adde
any whit helpe this, you fay^ Ton d,ny not that circumcifedfer^
Jens "Pfitreby faith to lodk^ on the covenant of grace ^ through thefe
adminifiraticm^ but by what warrant could their faith look
upon the Covenant of grace through circumcifion if the
command ofcircumcifion were not in reference to the Co-
venant of grace? Iprofeflel cannot underftand i^ nor doe
Ithinke it poffiblefor youj to rcconci'e this^ either with
the conftant doftrinc of the Scripture ccnceraiug the end
and ufe of Circumcifion^ or with your ownc grant, that
'Circumciiion was the initial] Scale of the Jewes Covenant
with God.

To cleare it further that Circumcifion was not a feale of
the land of Canaan^ or the temporall bleflings of it, I flaew-
ed the Fro/eljtes and their children could not bee circumcifid in
relation to Canaon^&c* becattfethey were not c.tpahk of any inkt"
ritanct there ; ye'a^ that it tied them to a greater expcnce of their
temporall hleffings by their long^frcqmnt^ and chargeable journies
to vporfloip at lerufakm 5 you anfwer onely this, all this may
bee granted^ yet this overthrorvcs not this pr^^pafition-y that the
Covenant made mtb Abraham hadpromiles of temporall bkjfwgs^
and thatfome rvere to htcircttmcrfid nho had no part in the covZ'^
nant of grace', but Sir, the thing I am' here proving is that
Circumcifion was no Seale of the land ot Canaan, net that
there were no temporall blellings belonging to the Cove-
nant ; I know the promifes of temporall bleifmgs belong"
to the Covenant of grace, as well as the promifes ofipjri-
tualh godlineffehaving ihtpromift ofthit life^ and fi f that rrhich
U to come : nor was I proving that all who were to bee cir-
curaciftd had part in the fphimall graces of the Covenant,
my drift being onely to prove, that all who were to be cir-

cuniciied

iP^fsM- Bafti[mefr9vedfr6m Scrifture. l g j

cumcHed hada viliblememberftip and right to bee reputed
as belonging to the Churchy againil which in this place
you fay juft nothing. Lalily, whereas I added that IjhmM
and the njl of Ahrjibums family y Efau and others were really tahn
into Ciwenant uniill afterwards by apaflafie they difcovcnanted
themfeivfjy you anfwer that I f>laiml^ deliver ^ij\aftefremthg
covenant of grace, nnhich in ethers won d bee called Armiamfmey
bee jttfi ta^ng int* th^ covenant of ^race^ argms eUUion or fmt
tf^ir/&/c^cA:ef«/e/ci^(5ii7«: freply^ I have no doubt but that
afl indiiferent Readers \4tVL enough underftand what I
meant by being taken into the Covenant of grace, even
loch a taking in as when the Gentiles were taken in, in rj-
mnumdefraBorumloCHm^in^eadofthelttiPts^ whotfiere brokgn
of: your felfe grant, it is one thing to bee under the fpiri^
tuall grace of the Covenant, and another thing to bee under
the outward adminiftration ; in this later fenfe were Ijhmaef^
EfaH^ and the reft taken in, they were viliblc profeflbrs had
an exteruall calling, and are all viiibl^ profefTors ele6i:ed,and
is not externall vocation Gods aft, though a common
one ?

The fifth andlaft conclufion which I laiddowne in my r Conclufion
Sermon was thhythi friviledges ofbeleevers under this I aft and vindicared, our
he (l adminiff ration of the covenant ofaraCe are many wayes «*- pnyilcdgcsisor
largea^ maae more honorable and Cjm/ortable then ever they jvere inJarged
in the time of the lerves adminljirationy many Serif inres fpah^
efibeirinlargementj rtnt one for the diminimfiing or extcnttsting of
ihem^ I could hardly have imagined that you could have
fpent ten or eleven whole pages in excepting againft this,
I (hall very briefcly examine what you have ^id 5 firft, you
(hew your skill in the de(cription of apriviledge out of the
civill Law, and I concurre with you, tl^af a priviledge muft
beefomenphat which is a i^enifity and that the fame thing may
bee a priviled^ at one time:, rvhich is not at ancthtr, that that
may b'H a priviledge in comp or ifin of the he ^.thenj which U not in
comparifon efChriftians : but whaf* all this to the purpole?
further (ay you,f&e/>n2;iA?^^e/^//i^ covenant of grace belonging
te the Ihh^aji: e tf it^ are not now more enlarged or more honorable
Or comfort abk t,jenihey ivere in tb^ time of the IctPeJ 5 I anfwer,

Bb firft.

1 8^ Infdm-B^ujtne fr$ved (rem Scripture.

firftjthough this were granted it hurts not nice, ii^s ftffici-
ent if the adminiftration be now more comfortable to be-
leevcrs and their children, S eeondly^if thei^ be no more ho-
norablenefleinthofc priviledges which belong to the fub-
ftance of the C ovenantj how comes it to pafle^that in your
Our fpiriruall anfwers to thofe feverall texts which I ana others bring to
priviledges prove the enlargement of priviledges under this laft admi-
howinlarged. njftrajion^ you interpret them of thofe privUedges which
belong to the fubftance of the Covenant or the fpirituall
part ofit? Thirdly^ though I willingly acknowledge that
the fpirituall priviledges are the fame both to the Jewes and
Gentiles^ the fame under both ad minift rations, yet fee-
ing that under this laft adminiilration, the/e priviledges arc
communicated not onely with morecleareuedejbut in grea-
ter meafiire and abundance^ floods in ftead of drops: wil-
dernefles made like L^^anon and Sharon^ I wonder you
fiiould fay they are no more honorable and comforta-
ble now then they were then; is not abundance of grace
more honorable and comfortable then a little grace ? But
fay you,f« nfpi^ oj the admimjirmhn it i^ granted they are ma-
ny wayes enlarged and mademore honorable: this will ferveour
turne well enough, for this was a privilcdge belonging to
their adminiftratxon, that their Infants were under it as
well as themfelves? yeeld that for ours^and the ccntroverfie
isendedj wee^fxy V) are freed from that hard and copy yd ah^
0fthiir TPoy of adminiflrathn : true fay you, it vs not onely our
prrvikdgeto bee free from that, htt it is our privi ledge alfo to
hitvcnothingi?2 lieu of that yojikcf To have nothing in liew
of them as they were fhadowes of the fubftance, which is
Chriftjis very right, but to fay it is our priviledge to have
nothing in lieu of them^as they were externaU Ordinances
to apply Chriii, isto fay it is our priviledge to have no Or-
dinances to apply Chriil to us^and thereby to make us corn-
pleat in him, which were a mofl abfurd thmg to affirme.
Whereas I added that our priviledges for onrfelves and our chil--
dren^areat leafl of honorable, large ^ and comfort able m theirs^
your anfwer to this is very remarkable, but whether "^vith an
obeliske or afteriske the Reader fhall judge 5* firft fay you,

circHmcifion

^ircumeifion hekngs tothe admimfiratiok ofiheCov^ndnf^ nstid
ihefubfianceof it. I reply^ ic was indeed a paiT of their aci-
miniitratioiij and obliged them to the reft of that manner
ofadminiftrationj as Baptiffiie now doth to ours, but did
it not alfo belong to the (iibftancc? xvas it not a feale of the
ngtiteoufneireof faithyofcircnmcifion of heait;, &c. doth
not the feale belongto the thing (caled? the conveyance and
ieal annexedto it^are no part of the purchafed inheritance, Mr. TSmbrr
but doe they not belong to it? Secondly, your next is as nukes it a pri.
remarkable > viz, 7h^t h^s jo fane from being a privikdge to vi.'edgcnor ro
our children to have them hptized -^ to have Bjpiifme fkcceed x;^ ^^^^.^^^"fs
ihejieaiof Circumeifion^ that it is a hem fit to n?ant ity God not ^^'^^^ *
having appointed it^ I anlwer, then belike our prrviledges
of the Covenant of grace are fb farre from being inlarged
by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptifine, that it had been
ourpriviledge to have wanted Baptifmc if God had not
appointed itj and by as good a realbn at leafi: y you might
have faid^thatCircumciiion was fo farre from being a pri-
vikdge to the Jews and their children^ that it had been a be-
nefit for them to have wanted it, if God had not comman-
ded itj fure, that is a ftrangc kinde of priviledge, of which
I may truly fay ^ that it had been a greater benefit to them
who have it, to have wanted it^ if the Donor had not com-
Hiandedit.

Next, you come more particularly to examine the proofs
of my Conclufion, and^iay you)/^e thing I fiould provty 'is
one ofthefi two^ either that circumeifio/t did hdong to tbifubfiance
of thtCoVe?iant of grace: or that the want of clrcHrncifion^ or fame
Ordinance in the place and ufe of it^ is a lojfe of privikdge of the '
Covenant df grace to uf and our children. Sir^ die thing I was
to prove was this 5 Conclufion, viz* that oHrprivifeJ^er are
' hiUrged^not extenuated: and as f or the(e two particulars, I
'have already proved, that Circumcifion, though a part of
their adminiftration, did yet belongto the (ubftanoe; be-
long to it I fay, not as a part of it, but as a meanes of ap-
plying it. And I have alio proved, that though it be a pri-
viledge to have nothing fucceed circumcifion , as it bound
CO that ounner of adnuniilration; yet it is a priviledge to

Bb 2 have

1 88 Infdn^'lApifmtffdvtd frBm Scrifture.

have fomewhat fiicceed it as a feale of the C OYcnant, in ^
much as a Covenant with a ^ale, is a greater benefit then a
Mt Tomles Covenant Without a (eale. More particularly, Ifaidoar
makes «he Co- enlargement o f pri viledges appeares 3 partly, in that wee
to"bec t£^Co' have frcedome, in what was burtheaft)mc to them in their
venanr of manner ofadminiilration 5 partly, because our Covenant
Worksjcrrone- iseftabliflied upon better prom ifes, Htk 8.6. Whereupon
ouOv. you enter upon aDi/courfc of that Covenant there mc«-

tioned5andyoupofitivelya(Tert>T'W2>w^//:'c Ccz/cnant of
tporkes, Alaife Sir-, why doe you nin into this ntedlcffc and
erroneous digrcflion? I faid indeed in my Sermon^that the
moi allLaw was added foure hundred and thirty yeares af-
ter the Covenant was made with AbrahamyXiot as a part of
that Covenant 3 but as a Schookmaderto whip them to
Chrift; that they finding the impotlibility of keeping the
t.aw, might more earneftly long after Chrifi: , exhibited in
dioie (hadows of Rites and Sacri ^cts^ &c. but toiay that
this Covenant mentioned in the eight of the HtBrewj^lwaiS
the Covenant of works, is a moft erroneous doftrinqlook
into the Text, andyou fhali find that the Covenant which
is there mentioned, (which God finds fault with, and calls
the prfl Covenant ; in oppofition to this l^ater Covenant)
had Ordinances of divine Worfhip, had a San^hiaryj a Ta-
bernacle,. Priefts, and Hi^h Prielrsj Sacrifices, and other
Rites bel onging to the a<lminiilrati,on of it. Sir, was this
. the Covenant of works?I hope you will not own it in your
2 Car, 5.10. next. Next you fay. That place, 2 Cor. 3. 10. th,' glory of
6iyf-inierprc» ikeirf^bad no glory in rejftB nj onrs* Thfj ii not m^ant of the
led by Mr. Covtnant uf grjit^ but of the Covinant in Mount Sinai 5 thtn-
.fmPes^ y^^g impcrtinentlj allcdgad hj me. . Sir, I wonder ai your con-

jfldencc in iti the Reader will eafily difcerne that the whole
icope oi that Chapter dearly holds foi th theprehemincncfc
. of the MiniJrery ol'the Goi^ptl^ above theMiidueryof
]\dofe^ his vailed Ceremonies : belike then with yon, Mo-
fa Ceremonies were the Covenant of works. Next , I
thcwed in n^y Sermou^that as our privil edges are better then
theirs, in being kt^'d frcm their burthens'-, 'fo ure aj rpiU as
^k^Jj ^^joy ff^^ bonoUT of king called a bolj Natisff^ a peculiar peo^

pk

*/ej a chofen ge ntratUn^ &c. Vpon this you difcourfe at large,
cfpcdally againft Mr. Biake , and yoH undertake to prove
that all thek things arc meant of the invilible Church. I
answer very briefly, none of us ever doubted 5 but that the
{^kituall part belongs onely to theinvifible Church , and
didfo rnthetimeofthc JewSiaswellas now? but yetwe as
well as the Jews partake of diatpriviledge, and ourvifible
landing gives us the honor to be (b reputed.as wel as theirs
gave it unto them 5 and w«re all the J^ws who had the ho-
nour to bee called a holy Nation^ really (iich ? were they
all inwardly holy, or effc6hialJy called? the like anfwer
ferves to your difcourfe upon "Ryw. 9. the Apoftle (jreakes
there of adoption as a priviledge of the body of that Nati-
on, their whole Nation had the Honour to bee called the
children of God, according to Vvt^t. 14.1. Te are the-chil-
dnn of the L^^rdyour God^ yet they were not all the fpirituall
children of God ^ the Reader may fte more of this in the
vindication of my (econd Conclufion, and you fi;!all doe
well in your next, fbJidly to prove that thefe were riot pri-
viledges which the vipbk Qhurch of the Jewes enjoyed
( though many among them had the kerncll without
the fhell} rather then thus to triumph in thefe fee-
ble exceptions. I added , Wee have all iheje things with
advantage^ not onely in the clearneje fff the adminiji rat tony hut in
fonie finje^in greater txtetit toferfons^ with mt-here if tieithermale
nor female, \yhy 1 adde this of male or female , you fay '
you knoWBot, except I meaiie toinfitiuate that in the Jew-
iih Church there was maleand female, becaufc Circumcifi-
on was oncly of the males, &c. I reply, I acknowledge that opened/' ^
though it bee true, that among true beleevers^ among the
Jews there was neither male nor female, all equally did
partake of the ipirituall part of the Covenant, as well as
now with us, y :t for the comforcablc manner of admini -,
ilration of it, even this diftin&on*of maleand female, is a
priviledge tnla^ ged under this laft and beft admin ift ration,
and the Apolie in that place. Gal 9, 28. doth plainly in-
timate the ealargemcnt of this priviledge in this re(peft,and
(bl think the words plainly hold ont^Aj many afyon ai have

B b 3 km

been baptized into Ckrifi^ have put on Chrifl'j there is neither Lr^

nor Gneke^y bond mr freeymaknor female ^ for j'€ are all one in

Cbri^Jcfmh^difye heChrijlj^ then are ^e Abrahams fied^

andbsires aecerdingtopromife. ■ To mc the Apoftle here doth

plainly l)old oatj i:h:|t now.under the New Telliament:,bap-

dfiiie-istheviiibleple^^eoF our being Abrahams feed ^ as

cjrcum^ifion was the pledge of it under the OldTeftamentj

'& that here is the enlargement of our priviledgq in the New

Teftamcntj that whereas Circumcifion of old was apply ed

to one Nation^ and not to others^ now out of all Nations^

luch are called in 3 as are made ^^>'^/7^?»j feed , whether

Jew or Greek. And whereas of old the feale was apply-

cd onely to the malefy in this reipe6^ the differences of fexes

is now taken away. And although it be true that the fpi-

rituall part of all this be made good onely to t; ue beleevers^,

who likcwife alone have the inward baptism e 3 yet vifible

profcffors enjoy th e vifible priviledge.

Next you proceed 10 reply to an Objeftlon which I
propounded i» my Sermon^ and aufweirfd^ (viz*.') In fame
things thff fea?s bad greater priviledges ihen.n^e have*^ at that A-^
hrabam had the frivikdge io bee called the father of ihefuithfuU :
that CbriftjhoHldbe hrn of ^w/ep 5 the Virgin Mary had the
privikdgetobethe Mother of Chriji '^ the whole Naiim of the
Jtrvj hadthii privikdge^ that GodmlleaB in their fiedagaine^
after the^hid been caft o^fir U7ibeliefmany hH?idredy^ars-^which
priviledges none ef the Gentiles. have^ or can have. And my an-
fwer waSa That our quefiion is about fuch priviledges as belong to
all rpho have afianding under the Covenant^ vphich every one who
is in cove?iant with God might expe^ hy vertue of the covenant 5
Tphetherf hee were ajti^or a Profelyte^ not fir any peculiar or
perfonaU pfivik.dge to any One man or xvoman^ or family^ or Triha.
That itnovpajs derogates from tti that fome particular perfon or^
Iribefhould enjoy fome peculiar primledges\ bptt if any of the
common priviledges^ vphkh they aU enjoyed by vertue of their
Church ^andingfbmldbt abridged^ then the priviledges of the
Nerv *fiftament vpoitld bee more reflrained^befi thofeofthe Oldy
this^faid I^is againft the word oi God. Your anftver b^Tbat
, thpt Argument hath no rf eight Jbut antly amotngfi Vulgar ^andnotir

JyHogifing

Infant-Bapfifnuf roved fr$m Serif tnre. i ^^ ,

^llogifing capacUitJ: andthtreforeinyonr Latim Taf^rjoumm--
tknthereinfioTKefeftbeFtrginMarj/y&c. And theiKC would
^tVfflhMtkc hvps m'l^ have more pr'wUedgts in fime nJpeB^
inform things^ then »v^ and jet otft condition 6etier then their j by
reafin ef fime other frivikdges T^ehave ahve them^ which re-
eompenee the defeU cfthofe privikdges'^ and ihtTtTortrioiood
ArgHtnent can bedraa>ne ^ That becaufi God gave juch a privi-
hdg^ to ih Jtrvs^ therefore n>'e mufl have/ucb a priviledge too-.y^a^
it would hte an jirgurmnt of arrogant prefumption^ ^ofay^ the
lews had fuch apriviledge^ ikerefore tPe mnft have it : They bad
a priviledgt to circumcife Infants^ her fore i^e mafl baptife Infanu,
I Anfwerj I thinke indeed it would take with nolbber
Chriftian thus to argue : The Jewes had it^ therefore wee
mufc have ic. But Sir^, to argue thtis, God gave fuch a pri •
vilcdge to the whole Church of the Jev/*^ that their In-
fantsfhould be reputed tobelongto his Cliarch, and have
the initiall £eale: Therefore if hee have not granted to
Chriftians » that their Infants ftiall alfo bee reputed to be-
long to his Church, and partake of the initiall feale, then
his grace to belcevers under the New Teilament is ilraitned
as to their pofl"eiity. This Argument appeares fo cleare
to niec^ that I maft confeflc my fclfe one of thofe Dull
onesj who know not how to deny the consequence, In
the meane time I obierve, that though you v/ouldmakc
your Reader beliere^ that thefe pcrfbnall priviledges of ^-
hraham^to have Chrift born of his flelh; the Virgin Mary to
be the mother of Chrift^ 8cc. doe prejfe my Conclufion, yet
you ipake not oncword to vindicate them from my anfwer:

"And thcreforcl colleft that by this time you fee, : that now
'tinder this adminiftrationaibme perfonal priviledges which
a few of the Jews had over and above what belonged to the
/eftj may be denycd us, and y«t they make nothing againft
this Argument-, That if the common priviledges which
every one ofthem had were denycd us^ our priviledges were ^inin^ion of

.' flraitned. Your other exception which you make concer- f^^Q^^^^^ °^
ning Melchifedeck^p Loty and Job^ have been often anfwered of chcCove^"
before. That which you adde concerning one k^de of Prcfe- nanr, helps not

'fyies amdTfgfht'IcTPSyti^ov^erecalied FrofefyteJ of the ^e^ wha ^T.jomks.

though

If^ UfA»t'Bafufmi fr&vedfr$m Scriftun.

though they ivere not circumcifyd^ rvcre jet reckoned anutnj^ the
JFerjhi^perj of God^ (^fftch as were GorneVms and others J aud
xvere dljojvitbia the Covenant of gra€i, Iknovf not whac yot«
intend to gather from itj unletie you would intimate , that
they were Church-members amon^ the Jewes^ although
they were not circumGifed • but had you iaid fo, that the
priviledgcs and Church- memberlbip of thefe Profelytes of
the Gate, were as honourable as thofc of the Prolciy tes of
the Covenant, your learned Pveaders would have (miled at
you > ^re there would have been no need for God to have
inftru£led Peter by a Vifion from heaven, that he fhould not
call them (to whom he was to be fent) uncleane 5 nor had ,
Feter been ever put to have made hi^ apologie for going m
to Comelif^ 2ind his company, if thefe uncircumci/ed Pro-
fclytcs of the Gate had been reputed Church- members a-
niongthe j€ws. Next you grant, T^2 lea^s indeed hud that
privikdge to have their children reckoned in the outrvard admini"
ftration^of branches of the Olive hy their hinh^ vvhkhthe Gentiks
have not. But if we Gentiles have it not, then are not wee
I pray you^ ftraitned in that particular? And I demand fui-
ther, when we are grafFed in, and To naturalized with them^
doc we not partake of all the fatnefle or priviledges of th e
Olive with them? wh at Scripture ever denyed it? f demand
yet further, did the many ten thoufands of Jews who wtie.
baptized in the Apoftles dayes, by their comming under this
bett adminiftration of the Covenant, and thereby kept
theif former growing in the Olive with advantage \ did
they thereby deprive their Children of that which you
fay was their naturall priviledge? if you thinke lb, pro- *
duce your evidence to prove it 5 if they were not, then it
fccmesthc Jewes who beleeved in Ch^ift, andkfpt their
ftation, had a greater priviledge for their children, then
t\\t Gentiles who grow together v;ith them, have for their '•
children.

I added* L^t any man fhew out of the Serif tttre , n^her^ onr
priviledges under th Gofpel are cut Jhort in any oj thefe things ^and
in particular for the cafe in hand^ concerning our Inftmts right tt^
the Covenant and fe ale of it^ oficen^e are fun the Infant-chil"

drtn

dnn of aU Covenanter j rvere noitbm the ^jvenanty and the feale
alfe longed to themi and by venue (fthe Covenant {whidh
itfiiHihefame) ive plead their mereft init -^ kt any p€T9 rphen
and ivhere this was tal^en away^ You andver^ it is unreajons"
bk to require ibit at your handi^to (hejv rvhatym doe not avouch:
you goe not about to expunge Infants of believers ottt of iki Cove-
nant of Grace 'y and yoft fee no cauje to bekeze me ^ r^ho affifme
that onc^ fhey tvtre rvitbin the Covenant^ &c, I reply3 bucddc
not you avouch, Thzztke Infants of the Jewes had this peat'
liar priviUdge^ and hirih-right tube undtr the adminifi ration of
the Covenant which ours have not ; which you know is
the onely thing controverted betwixt us : may not I boldly
fay^ That once the Infants of all Covenanters had this pr i-
viledge? niaylnotalfo cxa£t of you ta flicw when and ^^^
where this was taken away? who though you goc not a-
bout to expunge them out of the book of life, yet you ex-
preflyesq^ungcthem out of vifible mcmberfhip, while you
fay 5 the Jews In fants had it^ and ours have it not.

Laftl3j5 1 zddcd^i^ho ev^r milgoz abont to deprive them tfit^
iocut ojfjucha great part gf the comfort of hdeeving FarentSj
mup produce clear iejlimonies before they can perfsvade bekevers to
part vpith eithzr of them^ either right to the Covtndnt , or ta^ the
feale of the Covenant ; hecaufe next to the glory of God^ and the
jalvatim of their ovme fouks-^ their Infants interefi in the Cove^
nantj is one of the great efi benefits belcevtrs have from the Cove - n,en7 of o« '^^"
naniof grace^ evmto have their Children belong to Cjfods family privifedgcs to
and Kingdfnfe^ and not to the Dev ills -^ Cbildrmheingthe grea^ h;ave oar chil- ~
ic^treafure of their Tarmts^and the Jahationof their children s drcniefr oarol"
p;Hles,the greatefi tredfure in their children' and thereforetoeoi^ ^'^ -ovenaRt,
tbtde them oHt of thitjociety or vifible jlaading n^here falvation
^4f ordinary^ is fo great alojfe^ or eclipfing of their comfort ^ at
whoever would m^k^e themyeeldto it^had need produce very firong
evidence* and much more I iaid in my Sermbn to this pur-
pofe. Voa anfwer, Here I am upon my advantage grotmd^
in a veine of Oratory^and on a fubje&^<f all other jy ap^efl to move
afftSimS'^ to wit^ Varems tenderneffe to their children. I confcfle
in this point, I ftand upon a vantage ground (not in Gra-
tory^ to which I pretend not^ but) in point of troth , ha4

C c I

If 4 Infant'BAftifmcf roved from Seripture.

I only ipoken words without weight, you could and would
hav€ discovered their cmptinels^ and fcoffed at them fuffiei-
ently; you make revcrall fmall exceptions wliich I fbal brief-
ly toach : as, Firft, l^hat 1 touch Jomething tm mare upon the
Tffjnp Ofhionhss if I might hgiiefi'^dto jjmbo.ize nhh that Obi-
mm if the TapflSy who judge all unifaptized i7ifants io perijhi
which is not worth the anfwering. Then you demand
' What cmnfort doe Tfetgi^ifanntSy rpbich ike Amip^dobaptiflj
doe not give them as rvtU Of we-^ or what dijcomfortt in truth doe
ibeypveihem^ which r^tdiitnott I anfwer, the diitercnce is
very great, you leave them in the ftate of InfidelJs^we in the
eondSion the Jews children weie in while they were the
people of God; wee account them ^'aftually belonging to
thevifiblekingdomof Chrift, you actually to belong to
the vifible kingdom of the Devill; wee leave them under
the benefit of thatpromife, IrviUbt the God of ties avdofthj
■ ' fi^s y^^ acknowledge no more pro niiie for then;, then for

the children of Turks: k may be thele things are of no ac-
count to you, but I doubt not but they will bee with your
unprejudiced Reader.

I next proceeded to themaine and onely Obje6:ian made
^e^» 1 1. Anf. againft this whole Argument, which is this. There is no com-
«?^A-*'"^ WtfW^, n9 expr^Jle mfHtution^ or clear e example iu all the Nejv Tc
je ion, flatnentyoj baptizing ef Infarzt J', and in admin ifl ration of Sa--
cramenis^vpee arenottobelMy our owmreafm^ or grounds of
fetmingpT oh abilities^ hut by the cxprejfe order of Chrifi^ and no a^
thermfe* You fay, this is indad the maine OhjeUton , and
mthout anfwering it^ all that I have faid is to little furpofe. But
Slr,didnotyouforiMerly grant, that upon the proving of
my two firftConduiioHS the whole caufe depended?if there-
fore thofe Conclufions remainefirme, there is enough al-^ >
ready faid to the purpofe.

You addej Vnltfje this OhjeBion be removed , the praCiice of
baptizing infants mU never be acquitted frvm ^ill^rv0rpipy and
that the Frelatifij n>ill perp vertuall commaTtds from analo*
gy of the Ciriwiontall Law of the ]ews^ and Traditipns Eeclefi^
s^icdUy Of ancient at mrs for F^dotapiifme ^ for ibiir Bfelacy^
H^lj dajeJySurflice^ &c. And iUrefore iflftanttnet to it here^ I

Infdnt'Bapifmc f roved fr$m ^rifture. 195

Miifiyceld tfp my weapon s. Sure you think you are here like
to get fome advantage, you ^eakc fb big , but by this time
I have had fuch lUfficient experience of your flrcngth, that
I much feare not your great words.

Firft, for the point of Will' worlhip^ I (hall defire you to
prove this Conclulion, That all things belonging t» Chfifiimi
rporjblp^ eVen in tk eircumftjnccs of h^ even the ages and fixes
of the Terfons to whom theOrdifidnCes are to bee applyedy Mufihee
expreJJj fit down m the mw Teflamertt:^ If you prove not: thi«j
you lay nothing to the purpofe, for thii h our very cafe* I
have already (hewed the falienefle of it, in the point of the
Ghriftians Sabbath; for though the perenioniall Wor(hip>
which was a type of Ghriil, be wholly aboli(hed> yet note-
very thing which concerns all Worfhip which niuft have an
inftitution, is aboli(hed» And for the plea which the Bi-
(hops and others may pretend from the analogy of the Ce-
remoniallLawj when you (hew how they will raifc theii-,'
Arguments(which pollibly you have more skill and experi-
ence to doe then I have) as plainly as I doe for lufant-bap-
tifnie, you may pofSbly prevaile with the Reader in their
behalfl And when you (hew as much Ecclefiafticall Anti-
quity for Prelacy:^ Hoiydayes, Surplice, &c. I fliall beleevc
your Reading to be greater^^then I can yet be periwaded ofj
that you have ieen fome fiich Monuments of Antiquity>
which the Prelaticall Party could never yet light upon.
But I proceed with you-l firft granted^Tto there nmzxprefft
fyUabicaU cnirtmand for haptizini^of Infants^ no expreffe examftk
where Children were baptized. Sure ( (ay you)^!^^ is a f»rerpd
figne that I amnot lik^ tomakeQjod my groum^ having yeelded
thus much. And why Co I pray if your very next words leave
me ground enough^ when you (ay^ That if it kei made gQod
hy goodconfeqtienceyitisjiifficient: whatn«ed Was there then
of this idle (coffe? I added, Jdj&y other points of high eotf
cernmmfyarenotexprtfiylaiddoTPPnin the Nem Teftamem^ a$
forbidden degrees (fmarriaaej Laws againfi Folygamy^ the Law
efa vpeehjy Sabbath, &c. Y ou anfwer^ /» mterepefitkfe iVvf^
fiyipy it mufi he fo^ it mufl have either Prfcepi 0^ JftfftolkaU ex»
ample ^ t quivalent to a precept found in the Net^ Tejiamtt^y elfi if

C c 2 ii

r InfmH'ditftiJint fr^veiftm Scriftwn.

is wU''rm)Tprf:, snd thk fay y©u is (ntr cafe in band* I
;sin(wer as before, there is no abfoliHcnccdlirie that every
circumftaijce of an Ordinance^or the feYcrdtt Sexes or ages
to .whom an Ordinance ought to bee applyed, niuft bee
thusletdowncin the New Teftamcnt, this fs fufSciently
cleared Part 2. Seft. 81. and part 3. Sc6t i. As for the for-
bidden degrees of marriage , you fay, there U ont hamh
mmii9nedandcenJkredir2theNerp Teflament^vlz* th irjcejiif
§W Corinthians cafe ^ and that isy(ky you^^a firine agdmfi a mo^
rail comf9t4ndemem 'y but how would you laugh at fuch a
confequence in another 5 d man majnot tmrry bis fathers rvifi$
mthingwhich by the light of nature tvai abhorred anion gft the
Heathens, Erg^jallthe degrees of forbidden marriage inMn-
pj Lawes ftand firme?The like fay you agatnfl 7^iljgjm)\,
thireiiproofeagjinfi ity Mattb. 1^.^.9- But is this an ex-
prefle prohibition of it? mud: you not bee compelled to
goe by a conlequence to bring it in, which is all I contend
fori For that of the Sabbath you referreymr Keader tffSc&.S.Part
2 . whither I alfo moft willingly fend hini^ and leave it to
his impartiall judgement whether- the advantage lie not
dearely on my fide. I addfd, there is no eicpreffe command
fgr ehiidren of Beleevers^ rcben thy are grrnvne^ that they fjould ie
infruUed and baptized^ noexprejfe Command or example' n^here
wmtm rtceived th<: herds Supper^ gocd confequence I ach^pp-
ledge there isy but rtdJyllabicaU or exfrejfe mention of it , but fay
yoH^, there is cxprefle mention of wo/nens receiving the
Sacrament^Le/^ man examim himfelfey i Cor, 1 1 , S. whtre the
Griei^ r^ord comprehends h-ih fexeSy but doth that Greeke
word, where ever it is ufed,fignific both fexes? you will not
offer to (ay it^ Idelivirto yon ivbat I receized fr(mitbeL>>rd^
Verf 23 , J^^jfay you^» a cemmandto the jopbok Churchy which
coniiit«?d of w omt- n as well as meh,&c. But Sir, if any man
wcrfi di/polcdto wrangle with you, might hee nOt in your
*wnc words doe it, and ia^, all thefe exprejfw^j muft be limh-
ted fraffd^Mam iierial I grant all this is good by conft-
ijueikcj^butriOtin cxpreffe termes^ the fame (ay * for In-
fentsV J&tf grant all difctpUs way tee baptized^ fot that yott
&y there ieaTi exprtfe cvmmand^ your felfealfogran^ that

regenerate

ngtnermlffmtsmdyk caBed difcipksf l^Esmt^^is a good
Argament by eanie^enee^ thstxftich Inifants may bee bap-
tized 3 and if I have proved or can prove, that Infants of
hclcevers by tlieir birth priviledge have a right to bee eftee-
nied vifible Dllciples, then by your owne grants by a good
eoniegaenee they alio may bee baptized, and I undertake
to jurtiiie that Infants of beleevers are vifibJe DiicipJeS) as
truely as regenerate Infants are invilible difciples. I adde
further, they who are vifible Covenanters are to receive
the viiible figne, Ergff^ Infants ( who have been at large
proved to bee vifible Covenanters) are to receive Baptifm
which is the vilibie (igne of it : thefe things are fiilly clea-
red already, it is apparent there is as cleare a command
for Baptifnic tobe theinitiall ^ale under this adminiftra-
tion.as ever thei'e\»as for Circumcifion under that admini-
ftrationi and as good evidence that our children are to ht
reckoned to the Covenant^as there was for theirs^ artd no
exception in the word pat in againft them. Is not here
then good confequence^that therefore they are to have the
Seale adminiilred to them^ fuppoic when Paulfrnd let a
mm examine himfilfe^andfo lef bimeaie^ that there had been
no women there then amongft them, would not this com-
mand by confequcnce have reached women as well as men?
if this qualificati >n was foand in theai that they could have
examined themfclves, muft the command neccffarily ex-
prcffe all fcxes, ages or conditions, or elfe not reach them?
thefe things I niendonj as confequenoes parallell to thcfc
whichyourfelfcii^fiftapon. I added, »>e^ ^|W c^/e^/wiwe'
havtjf^cknt command snd example fifr Infant Baptijmez to ^he command
which you anfwcr, I fliould have faid jeere, I fetch fitcb a efCircamci-
€{mf iffe^ thztyOH imagim my attempt n>ill prove hnt a Mmfi fion re^cberh
from the MMntames trsvellh I perceive you know not iww "^^^ analogy.
you (hould pofleflc your Reader ti^ith pixjadkcy if you
(bould not now and dicn interline a confident fcofie, but
left's try the particulais, my firfr was, Abraham wh received
tha Cgvtnsnt h^d a commmd toftaU bis children with the initi-
all fuUj kecanje hif childrm were in Covenant whh him, NoTt'
bccaofcwbat concerned the febfiance of the Covenant is

Cc 5 alwayes

ip8 Ifsffant-BJftifme f roved from Scripture.

alwayes the fame, and what concerned them then who were
in Covenant as tliey were Covcnanters^the iame concernes us
equally with them as we are Covenanters^ what concerned
them in reference onely to their adnfiniftration was pecu-
liar to them felvesj^ as^ that which concernes the manner of
our adminiftration is peculiar to us- it thence follows that
the fame command which was laid upon them in their ad-
miHiftration in all thofe things which properly related to
theiubftance or fpiriaiall thing intended in that admini-
ftration, byajuft analogic and prgpcrtion^ binds us as well
as them, I fud^tbis ourVivmsnuimaim againflth FafifiSy
that Gods commands and infitutions ahout tha Sacraments of
the Jexres bind us as much oi tbey did thm in all things vphicb
hehngtoth fubfiancc of the Covenant^ oftdr^en not accidentall
ta them^my meaning being plainly this^that all Gods Com-
mands and Inftitutions about the Sacraments of die Jewes
as touching tlieir generall nature of being Sacraments and
fealcs of the Covenant, and as touching their ufe and end,
doe bind us in our SacramentSj becaufe in theie they are
the fime. To Ipeake yet more plaiuely, if I can, there
arc in the Sacraments thefe two things to bee difungmfhed,
the generall nature, end5and life of a Sacrament to (eale the
Covenant of God by fome fenfible fignei and ftcondly^
the manner of adminiftration of thefe iignes, as they re-
ferre to Chrift to be exhibited, or to Chrift already exhi-
bited.The firfl concernes remi/'/i/w,the thing it ielfy which I
called in my Sermon the Subftances the other W^^ concernes
the peculiar way or manner of doing it in reference toChrift
not jet come^or to Chrift already come'jth^t in my Sermon T cal-
led Accideutall^now when I fay that Gods commands about
their Sacraments bind us, my meaning never was to aflert,
that the.rituall part of their Sacraments doe rea'aine in the
leaft particIe,or that we arc tied to pradife any of thofe
things, but onely that there is a generall and analogical!
nature, wherein the Sacraments of the Old and^New Te-
Ch^mJerdeSd- ^^^"^^"^^0^ agree; and that in thefe things, our Divines
aatmntifjVctf ^^^ argucfromtlicir Sacraments to oar Sacraments; thus
7efl,cap, I , Chamierfiatholiei do^cm convenin Sacratmnta v€t€ra cnm noviJi

cmnihw

InfAH t 'Bapt ifme proved fr$m Serifture. 199

omnihif^ iU capitibm ^<« funt de Sjcramenti naiura'y Pro-
teft ants doe teacbthM the Sacramffnts of the Old Teftament doe
a tret wltbihs Saoramentsofthe Nei^ in all things fphich concerns
the nature ^f a Sacrament^ and yet faith he^ our very fenfes teach
ti/s that the externall rites of their Sacraments doe differ from our/. Amef.Bellar.
So Amefiufy qu^cUn^He de Circumcifione dicuntur & fpe^iant Enervnde Sa-
ad SaCramentaUm ejus nau^^m qnam habet in communi cum ^ramcns, in
reliqaii Sacrdmentis^ iUa relie applicantur ad omnia Sacramenta^ lener^,
andadclesimniediatly5r^/iw/r72.^;7^ie^ talis in circtimeiji&ne :
atidyou know mukitiides of our Divines fpeake to the
fame pnrpolc ; their Sacraments were Seales of the Cove-
nants:, fo are ours^ their Sacraments had a Divine inrtituti-
on, fo have ours, their Sacraments were not empty Sacra-
ments no more areours^ the grace accompan}'ing their Sa-
craments was not included in their Sacraments, Qtanquam
contenmm in continente') nor in oursy their Sacraments were
tobecadminiflredonelyto them who were accounted to
bee in Covenant, fo are ours- they had one Sacrament
which mofcimmediatly and properly, was a fianding Sa-
crament tor admitlion into the vifibic Church, fb have
wee, now in thefe things doe our Divines ufe to argue by
analogy and proportion from thcii' Sacraments to oursi
this was that which I' intended in my Sermon, namely,
Thatlooke whatdutie they were tyed to by their Sacra-
ments, in feeking after the ipirimalj part of it^ looke what
graces ,they were bound to beieeve to bee iealed unto them
in their Sacraments, the fame are we tied to belecve in ourss
thefe things concerneus as much as they did them 3 but for
thole things which were the accidental], or (if you like not
that exprefli on) which concerne onely the rituall part of
their Sacraments, thcfc doe no wayes oblige us ^ Rites and
Ceremonies, ttrhich Were peculiar to them, areceafed, the
duties, obligations, comforts andbenefits which ehey were
led to in their adminiftration, doe alj rcmaine the fame to
us under our adtniniftration , when the Apoftle fayes, ^ C*r.io.3,4*-
i(Eor. to. That all our fathers did eate fhi fame fprimaU meat ^ explftincd.
ani^fanhithfam fptrituaU drinl^ . our Interpreters gene-
rally doe agree, thai Jby the fame ffiriPHaU meatey and tU

famt

'i^o Infam-Baftifme proved ftBm Scripture^

famtjfjjtttualldrink^ hme^LiiZ the fame r^itbmrs; So Cdmrty
Beza^ ChimUr^ and who net, becaule fay they, Eadem fuit
VeUrum SacTamentotum & mflrorum fnhfantia^ Their Sa-
cranieilts and ours were the fame in fiibfiance^ yet no man
is foabiurd, as to thinkc that either theMannaorthe wa-

Eflv.f^ r,i. tcrofthctlockdoe remaine to lis : fiich in analogical!

expiaifted. Argomentas this the Apoftle F^?// himfcffc urcS:> Epbef6.
from the fifth Comniandcment which in the Jexvcs time was
backt with a particular promiie oi^ living hmg in the Land
tvbich the Lord thdr God would ^ve ihm 5 and bclcevers now
have no pro miie of living in the land oi Canaan^ yet Paul
there prellcs a proniiie to us from thie generall fcope of th at
promiie. Honour ihjf father and mothr^ vphich ii the firjl Cemr
mandcrmnt withprumifiyihat it may be vptU with thee^ and that
thou mM^filivehn^ on the earth : I inde^vour the more fully
to expreffe my fcnlein this particular^ becaufe after your
iifuall manner you endeavour to make my aflertion fenfe-
leiTe^and abfurd, and then come to reafon againft a ftnft
ofyourowne making, and cannot bee acknowledged to
be mine. Now I proceed to fee what you fay againft this
Argument , Firft, fay you, it ii no undcnidh argument that
this mufi bee gosd^hecattje all TronfiSf^tj ufeit^ nor did I lay
the weight of this upon their number or confent 3 but
onely intimated, that it is obvious and uftallj if you take
away the ftrength of the Argument, I (hall not leane upon
the men. Secondly, you confent not to this, that there were
no other ordinary Sacraments among the Itxves^ then Circumcijjtfn
and the Fajfeover ; you raiier cmcurre with Mr, Cudworth,
thai ibij hadalmoft as many Sacraments as Ceremonies 5 I reply,
whether this bee right or Wrong, it is nothing to the bufi-
neffe in hand, Mr. Cudworth denies not the lawfulnefTe of
fuch an Argument as reafoning from the Jewes Sacraments
to ours, in that fenfe which I have here fet downe, yea
in that very Treatife he acknowledge* the Lords Supper to
fuccecdthcPaffeover in that notion of being a feaft upon
a Sacrifice. Thirdly, you take a great dealc of paines to
put a fenfe upon my Words' which f never thought of,(z;/«.)
7hjfihe letPip Sacrament J are fiill inform ^ Wf, that I make

fome

jfgf4Mt-3dftlfmefr0V€dfr0mSfrifme. - ^^j

fmethiviis in the hwlflf Sacramenti t9 het fithfianiiallt fim
tbinn to bea ateidctaaliy that tk aCcidemalU I Would bavt ak»^
liflxd ibifMantiallJtd remaine, tbatlpenfbta little si^Im
Uiick iTioffofirfgthefubpnceifan Aa, and tb^ Accidents of
it thai Ifvouldmaksjemthings commanded by God in the Sa-
craments accidcntaU, and not to bee of the fame weight #r 9blj^i-
m M other things wificb arefubftarttiall ^ and finally J'i^ bring
no lefe then ten Arguments t$ prove that aUtbz lej^s Ceremmies^
jUtejandSacrdmentt^^treallabrsgaiedi fukftafke and circnm-
Ponce, whole and part. In all your ten Arguments I folly
conairrc with you, and in that conclufion which you con-
fotebythofc Arguments, I never undcrftood by the Tub-
fiance of their Sacraments, the feniible fignes uTed in the
Sacraments, but rem Sacrammtii the iplrituall part of the
Sacrament, or the rejfi^af a >^ and my Argument was never
intended to bee any other then that analogical! Argument
which is above fet downe, and none of your Arguments
meddle with. You proceed to thofe particular inSances I
eavcjin which you might havx; knowne the meaning of my
Argument if you had pleafidjand fpared %hdn2 with your
owne (hado w by your ten Arguments. The firft, is Circum^
cnmcifionifCilleda Seale eftbe Covenant^ ihend our Divines
fUad^ 0Hr Sacramentjare Scalesofihe Connant, To this you
except, ^^^mkrummtwbereCircfmeifim iicaUedtb* Seak
eftbe Cov9nam, tkngh you ach^wledge it is called the ftgne of
the Covinant in one place, andbothtkfi^eandfealerfiberigh-
tftmfnejfe of faish in another place '^ truelySir, I thought that
the comparing of thefe two Scriptures together, had been
fufficienttoftiewthatCimimciiion .yasa (ealingfignc. Se-
condly, you except, rif^^^j^g^ Circtmcipon bee caUed fo^ yet that
is no Argument t4} caB mr Sdcraments fo^ thotigbytmaremUiug
theypould bee called f9^ and you fay our Sacraments are Sealtf
eftbe Covenant, I reply, lay afide but this analogical! Ar-
gament , and prove if you can that our Sacraments arc
Scales^ our Sacraments a»'c neither called fignes nor fealcs
in the New Tcftamcnt, all the world mull grant indeed that
they arc fi^fy but when the Papifts deny our Sacra-
ments to be Soaks of the Covenant, how will you bcc aWc

Dd to,

302 Inf^nf-Boftlfme frsved from Serif we,.

to prove it, if you lay afide thi5 Argument^ .CzVc^wci/?^
r^» a^Seala^ thnfarrour Sj^amems <a}^e Saaksy oijrS agree:
ing with their in ihe genera II nature of a Sac^-amcnt^
Next I faidj Circumcifion wight hee adminifired but g?icp., it he-
ingtheSeakrf admiffian : thereforeBapti/mn hdng aljo the Sea/e
(if aimiffim m^beeadmimjirediutdtice ; you anfwe;^, ^t«)izzg
both amecedtnt andconftquetit^you kn^vp nothing^you faj^ but that
heth Circumcifion y and Baptifme might ^ee adminifired more
then onety which I hope I have (ufBciently confuted in an-
{wertoSeft,4. Part. 2. And fecondly, fay you^had there
been a command to circumcife hut enceyit ryould not fuEon> :h^t
therefore aperfonmay bee baptized hm once, but when thi^ is
proved tharBaptifme fiiccccds Gircumciiion to bee the ini-
tial! Scale, which your fclfe cannot deny, itrauft thenfol-
low, that a man may bee baptized but once, no more then
hee may be circumciled but once^ becaufe where there is
the fame reafon of a command or praftiie, there piuft bee
the fame pradi(e>^ I added, thji Circumdfim rv^f, to. be - admi"
nifindtipon the eighth day onelj ^ wai an -acsidentall ; thi^gy and
therefore binds noty meaning that it had /bnic peoiiliar rela-
tion to that manner of adminiftration, and had , no"
thing common either to the nature of a Sacrament in gene-
:ralI,or' to the end and nfe of that Sacrament as k -w^s-, me
Seatle of jadmiifion; 'you anfiver, if re^fon'^may -rttle
the rofiy there ps more reafon that Circumcifing en the el^yth da^'
fijould rather belong t a the fu-^ fiance of the Covenant ^ then kut
once circHmcifing^ both hecaiife.it rvat commanded by G^dy ar^d
tjf>ifed^€5 foms: conceive^. Gkriflsrtfi&m^ion.oajiht.eigh^ day,
1 replyjifyou please but once to underfiand, that by the
fubftance I underftand the res f gnat a^ the /piritiiaJl part pf
the Sacrament, you will no longer infifl: upon, making eve-
ry thing a iubftanti all part of the Sacrament whicii God
hath made a part of the outsvard adminiftration oiiely %
Indeed if Circumciling upon die eighth day had had any
fiich (pirituall meaning of Chrifts refiirrcftion upon the
eighth day, you had fpoke fomething tothe purpofe^.but
had I pleaded any fucli Type In it, as thatv diccumeifion
wasto^beuponthe eighth day, b^cau/e Ijcfus Ghrift was
to rife the firft day of the wceke, you wou Id have laughe

at

at me though C>yr;a?« had joyned with me'c, amt'told niee
as^you doe here, mem conceit s Are vairn withoUi^tBe Ughi &f the
'W6rd\ My iif^xt inftance WpIj fronithe Vaffi^ey^vphichh"
ingyeard) to bee repeated binds un» a^fefztitionoftbe Sacrameni
of the Lords Suf>per^ whichJkcceedsiM^FaJlhveri^itbem^the Sit-
crament of fpmtuallnoHrJjhmerji afklgroWlfi M'ikk oihtr rvasfhr
^irth and enterance ■) hut that th6 fsffeivcfwa^to he eaten in an
rutning^ and upon one fetevtmjtg iniheyeer^ rvdf aCeidenlaU and
foh'mds not uf- You anfxver, hae are a beape of diSidtef^^ and
'you as confidently dictate the contrary, ydu grant tha« the
■PalTeover was to beeyearely repeated^ but that this yccrly
repetition belonged to the fiibftance df the Covenant^ or
that this binds us to a fiequent ufe of the Sacrament of the
Lords fupper^you utterly deny, but I doubt notj that the
Reader who knowes that by belonging to the iubftance of
the Covenant I meant nothing but the end and ufe of it^
Co bee a (landing menioriall of that deliverance, and a ty-
picallreprefcntationof Jefiis Chrift, and our deliverance
by hiiu^xvill not rejeft this^ becaufe you magifterially deny
it. That our Lords Supper comes in the roome and ftcad
of it, there isiiich a cleare demoniltation of it, from the
Very manner of the firftlnftitution, and the ends and uies
of it 5 Chrift our Pafleover being then to bee fiicdfeed for
us, and wee in this fervice (hewing it forth^ and in this
:^arallellthcreis(ucha harmony of conient, that I intienfd
•not to lead the Reader into a digreiiion about it:. As for
the maintaining of Ea(ler and fuch fuperftitious ctiftomes^
my difcourie gives not (b much as one hint for it ; yea in my
Sermon I expreflely fliewed. That that Circumftance of
once a yeerc belonged onely to the Jewes adminiftration.
And I pleaded for a frequency of ir^but because you love to
knit knots, for others to untie, you demand, fiaee Wu
have Jo cleerean Examplt^A^s 20.7. of the cUfeipks eomtning
together the frfl day of the tpeeke i9 eMte the L§rdf Supper^ and
that that A&ion gave denomination te tin whole fervice^ and by the
relation 0/ Juftin Martyr and others^ this rpat the received
pra&ifeinihe primitive Cburcbesy T»beih?r vpee are not tied to
have the Sacrament every Lords day in the rreeJ^ : I aniwer,

Dd 2 though

2^^ Infm'BdftiJme f roved from Scripture.

though I conceive no abfolute tie to have k fo^ yet when k
can l>ec with convenience^ 1 know no reafon why it may
notbeefoi'butyou making this one of your great Argu-
ments, to prove the Iniatution of the Lords day, (yi^,^
An Apoftolkall example, and pra^^if? of the primitive
Churches, whethpr you bee not further engaged in this
point to a Sacrament every Lords day, I leave to your
iclfe to consider. You demand further, Jz«<:e the Apofik docs
fg txprejlyy and diftin^ily in hit relation of the Infiitution tnemi^
enthe time of h^ y^ would k^ovt? of the Afjkmhlj/ of VivinUy e/pg-
ciaUy fitch of thnty at haz^e heene earfieji for fitting at the Sa-
crament^ hotv Tx>i0 Can be Icofi to receive it at mother time 5 I aa-
fwer, certainly the AflTembly would anfweryouj as Cyprian
did in the like cafe, that the time was an occafionall cir-
furaftance 5 and that the cicere examples recorded in the
New Teflament of the Difciples par takiiHg of the Lords
Supper at any of their Church-meetings, whether by ni.^ht
or by day, doth abundantly manifeft.it: norcaulconaive
why you put this qucition to the Aflembly^unlefTeitbeto
fliewyouare notpleafed with the difpute about fitting at
the Copimunion, it (eemes you ftill like kneeling better,
for the thing it iclfe, you either judge thus of it, that
it was an occauonall circumftance, and fo you pick quar-
rells even againftyour owne light and principles, or if you
thinke it a binding circumftance^ whence comes it that you
ufe it not? You have yet another quarrcll about that exprefr
fionofmine, incdXiing'Bjptifme the feak-efour extrattce and
new bifth^ and thence you would infinuate, that I deny Bap-
iifmt tofia Sacrament of our nouri^meni and cominuame^ and
^ou tell me thafj but a diBate like the refi^ ^nd fomervhat ah^
to BeUarmine and the refi of the Fapijls^ who make the efficacy
ofBaptifrae to extend nottotheremilfion of the finnes of
our whole life, butoforiginallfinneonely. I anlwenthat
Eaptifme is a Sacrament of our Birth and entrance I have
proved, and your felle grant, that it is not of u(e atter-
ward I never fpake, never thought ; but as for my being
akin to EtUarminej adcrtion, if your affertions were no
movi^ sianto S§cinMyServttmiMarcicn^&e* then miacareto
she P^ifts,ic were better for you. My

My next Inftance was from our Omfiian SJfhatby th$ The fame At-
fourth Commandemtni hinds w for the fuhfianc^^ at mHcb as {ver g«meiM which
ithoundthejepoj--, there God once for all fparafid one d^y of'^ S^"^ ^X
fe-ven to he famdio himiM^^ atJ a& the n;orld flood hoHrid /.i7''"^''^c'"'^
zertueoj ihatCommmdmCnt inaUages^ to give unto ijod that baih,iseoo<i
om d^j effeven^ which jhmld be ofhu on^ne choafing^thoitgh oneJy for Infanr.
the fevcnth day of the week be named in the fouith Com- Baptifnie.
mandemenc. NoVf (faid I) ^od having put an end to the
Saturday Sahhath:, and furrogated the firjl day of the Tpeii^ in
(itad thereof to he the Lords dojfy rvei need no netp Commmdement
for keeping of the Lords day^ heingtyedhj the fourth Commander
mint to ksep that day of jeven which the Lordpould ehjofe: And
though no day bee mentioned ia the fourth Command*
ment^ but onely the feventh from the Creation, yet our Di-
vines think ic no abfurdity to rcalbn thus^ Thou ftialt keepe
the Sabbath, thou (halt reft the feventh day , that is , thou
fhalt reft the feventh day from the Creation, while the Lord
continues that day to be his Sabbath, and thou fhalt reft the
firft day of the weekj when the Lord choofes that to be his
Sabbath; in like manner I (ay of the Sacrament of Bap-
ti fme. To th is you anfwcr, Ton refirreyow jdje to n>hat jou
have before declared^ Tart 2, SeB. S. And thither alfo I referre
the Reader, when I bazf0 vindicated tbi^ anfwer from you, I
further adde , you neither there nor here deny this Argu-
ment from a confequence to be fufficient for pra£life of fbnie
things in the Worfhip of God, which are not exprefly laid
downe in the NewTeftament. onely you adde here, I for-
get the marke at which \/b»ot^ the Sabbath or Lords day he*
ing not to be n cl^pned amone^ the lews Sacraments, 1 reply, firfi",
I might as well reckon the feventh day from the Creation,
among the Jews Sacraments, as you may fay the Jewes had
as many Sacraments as Ceremonies. Secondly ^ I never
nunibred the Sabbath amongfl Sacraments, but becaufc the
Sabbath belongs to thcinftitutcd Worfhip of God, as well
as the Sacrament, and requires its iniatution to bee at fcaft
as cleare as this about Infant- Baptifnic, which touches but
acircumfianceofagei this Argument from the one to th«

Da 3 others

<.it ;M'i :\,>it.\?cr^

206 . , l^f^f^i'-BAftifm ^r&vMftm Serif ture,

otlierjwyiappearetothe inipartiall Read^f^ tb^B^e too
ilrong for y oil to answer.

Next follows^ tbt blow which rviU tumble downtAU^ it yonr
id^t may be believed; Mark Reader how heavie a one it is.
^^ I (aid when God made the Covenant with Abraham^^nd
^^ promiled for his part to be the God of him and his feed,
^^ what God promiied to Ahr/iham^ wc claime our part in
^^ il^ as the children of Abraham § and what God required
*^ on Abraham J part for the fiibftance of obedience wee
/^ ftand charged with as well zs Abrahatity to beleeve, to
^^ love the Lord with all our hearty to walkc before God
" inupriglitnellejCoinftru^andbrlng up oiir Children
** for Godj not for our fclrcs, nor for the Devill- to beach
^^ them to woi[{hip God accordiiig to his 'revealed will^ to
^' trainc them up under Ordinances and Inititutions of
**, Gods ownc appointment; All thefe things God coni-
^^ manded Abraham ^ and wee by vertue of that CoveiTant
^^ (being Covenanters with Abraham^ i\^t\dbound to all
'•^ thefe duticSjthough there were no cxprefle reviving thefe
^^ Commandementsin any part of the New Teftament^and
" therefore confequently that comiliand of God to Abra^
^^ ham^which. bound his fted of the Jew5 to traine up their
^^ children in thatmanncrofWodhip which was then in
^^ forccj binds beleevers now to traine up their children in
^ ^ conformity to fuch Ordinances as are no w'iifi, force.

^To all this you SLntwer^fhppoJing Hrfteafjethcfpirimal! part
of the Covenant to be that which Gjdpromijed to Ahtdham ^ and
tbeperfinjclaim'mgto beebdevarj 'y ibis p a ffage)oU grant to bee
irHeybe^aHfi thefe are fnorall d;itks. Well then , the deadly
blow is not yet given • I meane this: which you fup-
pofe: and I meane more then this^f mcane that "^hat Abra-
ham might claime as an inviiible beleeverj we may clainie as
invifible beleevers : what he might claime as a vifible be-
leever or Profeflbr^ wee claime the fame as vifible Pro*
feffors J and fo what he flood obliged n nto as a vifible be-
Icever or profeflbi;'^ the fame are wee obliged to 5 I meane
allthisj and you fay nothi^ig againft it;but the next palfage
is that which kills all. " I faid^ and the fame command

'^ which

Jnfmt'BafufmfTc^edfrom Serif turt. 207^

^^ , whkh erljpy Hcd Ahraham^o. (cal his children withthe fcaJ
^^ -pf the Covenant:;,rnjoyns uato feal ours with the^fealc of
^^ . theCovenantjand thaj eonimain] of God which exprefly
*^ bound y^^r^/:'^w to feal his withthefignofcircumcifionj
^^ which was the Sacrament then in force pro tempore^ for
"^^ the time 3 doth.ver^uallybindustofealeours with the
**^ fignofBap.tifraejWhichls.the Sacrament now in force^
^* and fucceeds intothe room of the other by his owne ap-
pointment. Your anlwer is,T^^ CoTifiquence is inferred from The reft of
a'JudaizhJgprmcipky without Scrifturt proving either pr'wei' ^ Z^^^^ra-
pk or Comlufim y whereof )OHhjJvehroHght ten Arguments ^«^ ^^^n, reach us.
of the Scriptvtre againft it-^ arid that the meaning nfthe Co^iclu-
■Jufion mnjl ^Cy iljjt wa are fiill bound to circftmcife , that our
males mufi he circumcifed at the eighth djy 5 that by no rule oj
Vivinity^ Logic\^ Grammar^ or Khetorique^ any man cjnccnftrue
thh Commind^Cut ejf the foreskin of the males upon the eighth
djy ; , that,is.y Ift a Treacher of the.Gofpcl baptize young Infants^
male or fernaki by as gosdConfequ'nce I anight fay ^ thou- art Vc
ter, and uponthps roch^ 'EvgOy the Pope is Monarch of the Church-,
Qr^arijePeter kill and eate:,'EtgOy the Tope may deprive Vrinces.
So thcujthe dint of your mortall blow lyes, jn this^that you
maglfteriallycallit a Jadaizing principle ^ that you have
^ brQught ten Arguments to prove that Mofij Ceremonies &
R.ites do not bind Chriftiannienjbut that they are all abro-
gated, fubftance and circumftance, whole and part^that this
vertuall confequenee from the command of Circumcifion to
. baptifm canaot be made good either hy Divin ity or Logick;
butfure^ ifthis be all you can lay again ft iCjtheCpnlequcnt
and Conclu fion will eafily rec over of this wound. W hen I
iaid but juft nov/jT hat Gods Command to Abraham and the
JeVPSy to trains ftp their children in that manner ofU^orfnp whi(:h
..was thin in fou^e^ . , hinds m tjow to traine up oar- children in con*
. fo-rmity iofu^h Qfdinancts as are mw in force'. You granted
this rule was tme^ if meant of believers, I pray what diffe-
rence is there betwixt this confequenee and that^ c/peciallys
it being cicare in theScripCurc, thatBaptilme (iiccecds Cir-
cumcifion as the initial! leale of the Covenant 5 and pur
.children have the fame right with theirs .-to. bee. reckoned to

she

j^ J Ufsnt-idftifme frovcdfrdm Strlfturtl

the Covenant: ifkbcagoodconfeqiient. That ^cjw/c A-
bi aham was kound to traine up bk Chitdnn in conformity to thofi
vi^iimisns which potnthtn in for et^ hcaufe their children had
right t^^efo trained up 'y thertforewt anhmnd to traine up our
children in eonformitj to the present infiitutiom , ^tcaufe our
children have right to bt fo trained Hpy is not this other confe •
quence I fay as good. That ^ecaUjk God commanded Abraham
■to adminifttrtohis children^ tbefeakof admijjiotttnto Covevdnt ,
hecaufebU children wen to he acefuntedts hdongto that admini-
f ration^ ire are to dot the Uki to 9ur children norv^ ^ecaufe they Be"
iong to thii adminrfi ration* T fay further, becauis Abraham and
the Jews were to traine up their children to celebrate the ie-
venth day ofthewcektobc Gods Sabbath, we therefore are
bound by vertae of that Commandment to ti'ainc up ours
to keep the firft day of the weeke as Gods Sabbath: which
confequencc your felf grant to be good^though the thing be
a patt of inftituted Worfhip, and no exprefle command or
example of it in the nelvTeftament.I appeale to al Divini-
ty ScLogickiVvhether this confequence from the command
of Circumcifion to Baptifme be not every way as ilron§ &
clear, As for your ten Arguments to prove the abolition of
the Jewifh Sacraments 8c ceremonies, they are al agreed to,
Sc are brought nothing tohe purpofe in hand.l h;ave alrea-
dy (hewed that this argument from the Analogie betwcene
Ciraimcifionand Baptifme, and the reafon, end, and ufe
ofthem both ftandsftill in force, though Circumcifion it
felfe be aboliOicd 5 and I doubt not but rfie impartial] Rea-
der will acknowledge this argument to be as good, Circum-
cifijour chi/drevy hcatifijottr children bavf ri^ht to thu initiaU
feaJi J E rgo, hy analogie Id Cirifiianj baptize their chldren^wha
have tht ptme right to the inltiaU fiale 5 as thjj , ye lewes keepe
the Sabbath on th feventb orlafi day of tht weekly Ergo,jre
Chriftians l^epthe Sahhatbontkefirftofthe rree^e. As for your
ridiculous confequcnces which you put upon me^ of ^^ihou art
Peter, Ergo, the Pope is Monarch of the Chttreh^&c, I anfwer
onely this, I fhall define youin your next, to deal with your
Adverfary by folid Arguments, rather then feek to render
^im ridiculous by jccres and fcoffes, left in die end you meet
1 with

Infm-Bdftifme provtdfrom Scripture. 209

with f&me adverlary who may drefleyou in your own kiiidy
which I have no niindc to doe j whether I have not mad&
good this command of Circumciling In 'ants to prove bap-
-ti2ingof Infants, bygoodconfsq'jenccllu'ave tiie Reader
to judge J and proceed to cry your Itrcngth again it the
next.

Another command by gocd confeqnence I gathered out of 0 ;; , .

T»hreour Saviour bids hk Vrfcip!c$ goe and teach all Ni ionfy com*n7and for
haptvcmgthem^&c, Vf^hemn I obfirved tix^Q tb'wgf, Firfly Infant Bap-
wh.Jt they were to doe'j viz. to teach the n?hoU Covenant^ the Cgrue" fi' '^ ^X ^^** '
nAntmAdemth N(Xdh^m^ vphereof this vp^ am branchy I vpIH f^^l"^*i^^*
he the God of tbney and of thy fend , they rvere atfo to baptize^ that
isy to adminifier Bap:ijme as afeale of the Covenant ^ to all wf^
received the Covenant, Secopidly^ wee have the perfom to whom
i hey n^ere to doe this :) all Nations', where Jf before the ChUrchwas
tj ed to one fSlatton^ ont Nat in onely were difc'tples-^ now their Com*
mijjionwof extended to mak§ all Nations Vifcipks, ezerj No--
tion which jlnmid receive the fAith^ Jhou'.d beto him now ^ Oi the
peculiar Nation of the Jew J had been in t: mes paff^ now fPe h^ox^
when that one Njtiozi of the Jews wefe madeViJciple s , and cir'^
cumcijtd^ their Children were made Difcipks (made to Ifelong to
Gods fchoor)4ndcirc/tmcifed with them y&cTo this you anfwer,
Firila thatpromife^ I will be iht Godofth:e and thy feedy that it
fhouldbt thus interpreted^ the fed of bektvcrs afitakm into Co*
venant with their Fareffis^ if a new Gofpely no older thenTjwingli'*
t^* But 1 have fiifSciently proved that this was good Gof-
pel in the Apoftlcs dayeF, and in the times of the Fathers
of the Primitive Church. Secondly, concerning the per-
(bns who were to be baptLred, every Nation, or all Nati-^
tions: to this, bccaule it is like to trouble you , you bring '
forth your old artih'ce of framing many fences , whe-
ther by every Nation, be meant b^k^verj of every Natior?^thcn
you grant the (cnCe is good: or, whether by Nation be raeant
a great or eminent part of the Nation ^ the QjvernoHrSy and.
cbiefeCiiiejy the reprefintative body of a Nati .«, Then you fly
outj and ulke o( baptizing all wuhin the Freeing s of a Parifi,

Ec a

iio lnfant-3apufmeffOvedfr$m Smptme.

a conceit which you fallen upon Cyfrian^ andtdke ofmcef
pty of baptizing fjofficiaiing Prhfij-j, and bring in tk Ifide-
fm^nts^ nothing to the purpofe, and enquire whether
•^*S or \thtm] referre to Jslations^ or Difiip/ej^ iathofc
words of our Saviour; then you vent your Critici/mes a-
gainfttheauthor of Infant-Baptifnie^ and undertake to
ftiew thiat i^^TivQa,7i^ fignifies to teach cum effe&fty or teadi
dll ihey be made Scholars 5 and after a long Difcourfe upon
theft things^y our reiult is^that ^'7«f [jhemjnizy be meant of
Vifeiphs^ and Nations refpc&ively^ Vifcipks of "Nation jy or Na-
tions who be DifcipleSy hut not to kaptize any of ihem till ihey r^re
Vifcipiif. But Sir, what need all theie things? the meaning
is plainer by Nations , I neither meane the major part of a
Nation, nor reprefentative body of a Nation^, nor the King
of a Nation; but whereas before^ onely one Nation of the
Jews were Gods people in Covenant, now other Nations
fiioiildbetakeninJikewi(c: and whereas be fore their Com-
miflion to preach and baptize was refti 'iCdve , Goe not to th
Gentiles orSamaritans^ now he enlarges their C ommi ffi on to
all Nations ^ and wherever their Miniftery fhouW bee {6
blcfled^as to have any Nation accept the GofpeI,they fiiould
bchis people now, as the Jewes. had been in times pafl, ae-
Efayig*2A'' cordingtothatEvangelicaIlpromi(e3Era.i9»r4. Inthatday
e^plaiacd. fialllfiaelbe a third rpith t^gjpt and Afiyria^ even a bkffina
in the midH of the Land xphom the LordofHoflsfiaL l^kffc^Jaj^
iftgy*SlejfedbeEfypt my people^ and Afryria the rrorj^cfmy
y4nds,a7uilfrael mine inheritance. Here is the Nation of S-
0ty and the Nation of Afsyriat2kcn into Coven am as wdl
as Ifrael Gods inherjtance3and now Abraham indeed became
^cFatherof ww^N^?i>«J5 fo that the emphafis of this
Text is in the word [Nations^ in oppofition to th e ove ATj-
iim of the Jews ; that whereas the Apoftles thought they
were never to go to thofc vile nations who were efteemed a5
Dogs and Swine^ our Lord inftrufted them, Th at n o w hee
would pluck up thepartitionwalJ, and that the reft of the
Nationsfiiould be brought within the verge of his Churchy
and partake of the fame Covenant, which thejeweshad
before enjoyed as their peculiar treaftre (a wonder of wcr-

l0fdnt'Sapiifmefrcifnlfhm Ssrlpurc. 2it

cy, as the Jews themfeJves judged, when they camcfirft to
underftand it, AQ, 1 1. 8 ) aiid confequently when odicr
Nations fhould thus by receiving and profcffing theGofpel
come under liis wing, they fhould enjoy the (ati>e benefit of
t he C ovenan t with the JewSj He would henceforth he the God
of them and their fetd^

Agalnft this you except many things: Firft^&yyoUjffee*
there may hee a rule ajfisned to kftor^ urixn a Nation maj^ he called
d heUefving Nation^ hia there it none: And to prove this minor,
you run out atlar^e, not when a Kingin haptiz^d ^ ttot when
the refrtfetttath'c bsay^ tjot when thigreate^ fart arekekeuers^and
fttrther^if the children of rvicked parents in a nation mof he hapth'
zidjt mftff he either from their defctm^orflau ofhirtb^ hath^ if
h} defientyitmufi he either from their imrnidiatepgrtntSy (frfonfa^
thtrj within memory ^or biyond memsry •, if from *the place %f Atf
bhrth^then the chil iren ofiurks horn iwEngland may be haftized^,
andiif the children of wkkld parents may cl/nme isjtt mt^ie from
fome Charter y hhoLhzm indeed had a Charter tothramtife hii^
how tvickidfoever they fhould ptovey but other parent t have nme^,
And here againe you bring in Kom. 1 1 . to be meant of j per^
fonalipriv Hedge ^y faith , which hath been before confated.
I an(wer to all this in a word or two^there is a known rule,
viz, when a whole Nation conlifts of viiiblc Profeffors^thafe
Nation is to be reputed a Chriilian Nation > and when the
major pare of a people may by a figuradve cxprcffion bee
called a Nation, that major part, if they bee vinbk ProfeP-
fors,may by the fame figurative cxpreffion be called a Chri-
ftian Nation, a holy Nation, a (eparated people, whether
any who having been vlfible Profeflbrs , and afterwards
prove apoftatcs, or be excommunicate^ may have their chil-
dren baptized, or whether childrei^ in right of their forefa-
thersjor remote anceftors (when their immediate Parcntt
arecutofFfrom theChurch)maybebapmed,or whether the
Infanu of infidels brought up by Chriftians,and fo adopted
into their Families, may be initiated into Chrifiianity by
Baptlfine, whether upon the ground offcderaU holineife
or other warrant of Scripture, are queftions notbefoD^g
to our prcfcnt Ixifincflfejdiareforcl paffc them over.

Ec 2 I

^j^. Jnf/mi^Biipifme frorvtifrom Scriptm,

Whar it is fo .-, ? I addedj whrn that me Nitiemof the JewJ were made Vijct-
make difciplcs. pjcs andc'trcHmcifedytheir Infants were made Difcip!es (made to
belong td Gods Sthoole) and cifmmcifed vptthihem^ wi en that
Nition vpas madi Vifciplesin Abrahams loynes ^ ar^d circMmci-
jfciy their jted was alfo the fjtne v^hm thejtvere tak^n out ofE^jpf^
and a^tHjUy made Vifcf'iSytbeir chi drnntre alfo with ihem.
Yoa anfivcr, Ftrff, this jtiPpjfeth that Chrifi hidik m hapfiz£ aft
^fitiuns aft^rthe mamier that th^ Icvfis did circumci (e one liMion,
Secoadlj^ that the Nation ofthi lervs were dijcifUd nhen they vpfrt
eifcHmeifed, And you fay to the firft Suppofitionj there U n9
'ground for it^ tbe^pcfile tijtevp Chrifts me anifjgwdl enough ^th at
^^jUpertto preach and then to ^aptizeh and that there was m allH-
fiofifromtircumcifiontoBaptifme^ as Mr^'B lake conceives. But
.Sifj-fince it is apparent that here is no commiflion for any
new Method in their wo rk^ but one]y an enlargement of
th eir commiffion to apply their Miniflery to new perfons ,
^w could they uiKifrftand our Saviours meaaingto pro-
ceed anypcher wayes to the Gentilcs^then among t^*". Jews?
How among the ]iws and Profelytes, it is apparent^ that
childr^^n receive the initiall feale with their parents;, yea,
^ndypuyourrekc grant that their infants were baptized
^eh they werccircumciied^though baptifrae ivas notthen
S Sacrament , and when it was taken into the honour of be^
ing aSacfament:,thereisnotOHe word in the Scripture of
jefir^iniijg it from being applyedto infants as in times paft,
\1^ ref fo;! i^f the iileuce of the new Teftanicnt about bapti--
suhj^ t^i^ntSjicomes afterward to be, confidercd^ when your
.OJi-(Mon fromiccomestohand. ^

To the feqojid Suppolition, That the lews were difdpkd^
andibnr childrMn neredifcipkdwben they were circHmcifcdXcm
Qyy iik^ fficl^ a confirH^ionof the wordH-^^Tivoa^ t^ [make dij-
^ipies^-'OSycH bek^ve\nq^exicoii^ mrany E-xpofitor to tbk dayjoath
iijier madi^eftbat nerd^whi^h plainly fiiinijiejfo to teacb^as that the
perfons taught do karn^ and accordingly frofeffe tbd things taUfibt.
Sir, IpretendiiottobeaCritJckj though you doe, but I
have learpt from better Criticks then your ifeli\ that
^^^^'^^^ 1? aRabbinickphraft^^nd from thejr uie of
itjitish^ttobeuiadfcrftopdj and with them it%nifics to

admit

Infmt'Bapiijme f raved from Scriftme. % tj

admit Scholars T>Qbn H^V is a familiar manner of
ipeech among them for to admit Scholars, and a*^ HTC?]^
to get or retaine a Mafter ; cow this admiffion of Scholars
was not quia ttjnt dMi^jtdy at ejfent 5 and there is this ditfe-
rence with them about this matter 3 that t3''1'\bn Ti'Vy is
toadmit Scholars to be taught, and On'^Q^bn yWj} is to
breed Scholars^or to make them learned. And it you pleale
to consult the L,earned Spanhetniuf^ in his Vubia Evangelia^
^* upon this very place, wherein he vindicates it from the
<V.Anabaptiils, he vi' ill tell you that tz fit^T-.v'ifi'^ fignifies
«^ notoncly to teach, but to make difciples ; which (laich
^^ he in this p!ace)isdoncby baptizing and teaching^there-
<^ fore(iaith he}the fending forth ofdifcipks in thisplace,i§
^^ (hewed or laid down^ Firft, from the end of their fend-
^^ ing. Secondly, from the fevcrall a6i:s they are to doe to
'^ toattainethisend* The end of their fending is rojia,^-
cc T5U€/j'jtomakeDiicipleS5 the anions whereby they are
*^ to attabc this end, are baptizing and teaching : and he
^^ gi ves this good reafon for this his Analyhs , becaufe if
^^ TV fxu^nviipy (hould fimply fignifie onely to teachj there
*^^ would be found a tautoiogie in Chriils words; thus^ Go
" teach all Nations, baptizing them, teaching them. The
*^ Icnfc therefore (faith he) of Chrils words, is thiSj Goe
*^ ye, make disciples t6 me out of all Nations by baptizing
'^ and teaching j and this making dixipkj^ fito modo infan-^
*f tiM ettam apfdri p^itcrat . sfamdj mim partaUJ^ &c. For
*^ when parents doe give their names to Chrift for them-
^^ fclves and their families, their whole houfe is diicipled ,
^ their children as well as themselves . By this time I hope
you may be perfwaded that baptizing may well bee rendred
difcipijng. And among; the Jews, to become a difciplc, was
not by being firft taui^^ht, and then initiated into a Mafter,
but is meant of being initiated into a Mafter, to bee taught
by him^ fo^ll ^frael was baptized into Afo(t.>^ i Cor,iQ- not
as already inllrufted, but to bee in ft rufted and guided bj
him fo. the future; fo hfephoi Arimtthea^ kf^bUlivoi -iZ r^tt,
Mjt.zy.'^y. diicipled in himfelfe, cntred himielfe into
Chiri*.s icboole 5 fo the blind man to the Pharifces^ lobn 9.

Ec3 will

2 1 4 InfofiS'Bdftifmt frevedfr^m Scriptf$rt:

will ye bee hi$ Difciples, willyeprofeflehini, wiH" vebee
initiated into him? the veryfirft day any one initiated
thenifelves to learn, they were called Difciples.

FHriher you (ay, if the Affiles had under food snr Saviouri
command tbHSy,Vifc'ipU aM nations baptizwg them^ thatis^^^-
mit the Infants of all nations to bapt^mepOt the Jems did the
male softhat me nation to Circumcifbn, thejf might have faved
themfelves a great deak of labour of frtaehing before Baptifmt^^nd
of baptiK,iHgfimales^ and tvould have left usfomt prefrdifrt offuch
a pra&ife* I reply, why the baptiaing of rnfants of Bdcc-
ving Parents (hould fpare any Preachers the paines of teach-
ing growne men, who are infidells before tliey are conver-
ted, doth wholly tranftend my capacity3*becau(e the Infants
of Profelytes tvere to bee Circumci(ed with theirParents,
therefore thcjeives might (pare the labour of preaching to
grownc men before they circumcifed them, this is a moft
wild confcquence. or why the vertuall and analogical! ar-
guing from circumcilion to baptifine, (hould be brought as
an Argument againft bapti2ing of women, hath as little
reafbninit; there being no w under the Gofpell, in refe-
rence to this Seale of admilli on, neither male nor female,
Wlereoi you diddsjhadihey done it they Vfculdharve left feme pre^
fident offuch a prallife^ whether by good confcquence they
have not left us fome evidence of it> "is the que/iion wee are
now debating* I added, in every nation the children make a
great part of that nation^ and are alfvayes ireUded knder every
admriijirati m to the nation^ rrhcther promifes or ibreatningSj)Ti-
viledgef erburthenf^ mercies or judgement j^ wilejje they beeexcep--
tedy whereof I gave divers inftances in my Sermon 5 you
an(wer, the Lord hath plalmlj given a caution in Scripture for
the leaving out Infanis in this adminifiratum^ according to or-
dinarfTHle^ in that hee dire&s them to baptize Difciples ttpon
preachir7^yhee excludes lafa?stSt&c, andrvhtn Chrift and John
^^izedonelyfuchj this pv2idd&vxdudzs others, I anlwer,
by what rulethendurft you baptize an Infant knowne to
you to bee regenerate, fince they cannot bee Difciples upon
preaching, ifyouiayyou cannot doe it by ordbiary rule,
(hew us (1 pray) your extraordinary 5 if you aniwer they

are

Inf4nt*Baftiffmfr&vid from Scripture. 2 15

are Diiciples, therefore they may bee baptized 5 1 aniwer^thc
Infaiics of beleevers are vifible Difeiples^ they viiibJy belong
to the kingdome, femily^ ichoole of Chrift^ as I have abim-
dandy proved already • any manifeftadon of Gods that
perfons Dclong to his Covenant is to your felfc a lu£5cient
ground of accounting them fuch, either a promiiejor poW'
ring out the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoft> (though
they are no infallible fignes of inward lanftification) or
confe^on of faith or of repentance, are warrant fuffieient
for us to bapti2e them^ now the promifeof God to belee-
ving parents to bee the God of them and of their fed, and
his owning them as perfons belonging to his Churchj is as
reall a manifeftationof it as the other fignes of receiving
extraordinary gifts, externall profeffion^Scc either are or
can be . And whereas yon adde that Chrifts and Johns Bapti-
zing fuch^ and no other as wWe a vifihleprofefjion^ U exdnfizt
to aU other J J anfwerjfirfti it is no where faid they baptizecj no
othorsjfecondlyj deny that confequence^this is not an exclu-
five rule, the pra^^ife and example of Chrift, and Joh» is
fuffieient to make an affirmative or pofitivc rule,/^ baptized
fuchjtherefire wee may h^tize/uchy but it's not exclufive, that
' therefore wee may baptize no other^and the reafbn is plainc,
diey poffibly might not meet with all perlbns and occafio-
ons, andfo their praftife is a good rule, not a full rule;
I fhall give one inftance, wee read not before the tenth of
ilie AHjthdt either Chrifts Apoftles or lohn the Baptift bap-
tized any profelytes of the gate, or that they baptized any (as
you fay) until! they made aftiiall eonfeflion of their faith
and repent an€«, or that there was any rule given, that the
receiving the extraordinary gifts of the holy (Shoft
(hould wif hout any other confcffion bee a fuffi'cient war-
rant to Baptize any, yet Peter upon the veiy powring out
of thofe gifts, without requiring any fiirtker confeilion
either of faith or repentance, baptized Cornelius and all
his company: in one word, any word or z^ of God de-
claring that fuch and fuch belong to his vifible Church, is a
fuffieient warrant without any danger of wil-wor&ip, and
tliis wee have abundsmtly for the infants of bclccving pa-

rent«>

aitf Infant-Bapifme prQved fr$m Scripture.

rents, wcc have therefore here nothing to doc with a mix-
ture of wine anc^ water, (ak and creame and fpittle, they
are impcftinentto our buhnefle, and you bring them in
to no purpofej all your difcourfe of wil-worffiip which
you thus ofce« repeate, reaches not the point in hand in
the leaft tittle ; the Sacrament of Baptiihie is an ordinance
of his ownc appointment, and by his appointment may
bee applyed to all iuch as himfelfe doth manifeit to bee in
the number of thoie who belong to I 'is vilible Churdi,
what courfe fbever himielfe picafcs to take to maiiifelt it^
whiles wee keep within thefe bounds, we are therein out of
the danger of will-worfhip. 1 added, n behooved ihe Lord to
give them a caution for the leaving out qj^ Infsntj in this new ad"
minif ration^ that thsy might h^oT» his mind ifhee bad intended to
kave them out ^ rvhich that ever hee did irz rvord er deed^ cannot
he found in the Script areata this you aufwer^zV behooved the Lord
tcgiye a precept to put thtm-ininto this new adminifiraiion if he
intended to haz^^ ibem in^ n>hich thai ever he did you c47inot find '-,
J reply, but I have abundantly proved that they alwayes
had a right to bee accounted as belonging to his Church, to
bee reputed vifible members, and therefore need no new
putting in : if God once beftow upon a people a Sabbath
to bee a (igne between him and them, they may lay claime
to that Sabbath upon what day of the week foever he plea(e
to appoint it: the like is to bee faid here, while the Lord wUi
own any to be vifible members of his Church, they have
right to the adminiftration, bee it new or old, if they bee
capable of it, and no barre put in again ft them by him-
iclfe.That which followcs in your booke, page 133. about
Cbildrens ^eing tak^n in with their parents ^ and included
unlcjf: excepted , and of being under the former admimjlratim^
and founder this ^ by par it ie of re afonyhsith been abundantly
(poke already. I added, onr Infants are capable of being Di-
fiiples as r^ell as the Infants of Jerres and Profelyie/j you grant
it to bee true, andlaske no more for ours then they had
for their?, and though they bee not capable of receiving
acluall inli:ru6:ion from men, yet they are capable of Gods
oivjie teaching even in their Infancy as much as the Jewes

' chil*

Infm-tdpifmifnvedfrmSitiftm. ^if

Children were, which is fiifficient for my puqjofe; I addedf,
in Qhrifls dialed: to hlmg to Chrifiy and to bee a Vi{dp!e it aH
mt^:, and cleared it by fo me Texts in theMargent^ you an-
fwer onelythif, th^t though Mr, BUk^e triumph in thii notion y
vet it if a triumph before vi^orj^ and that the Text citedhj m
(Pale not (f little ones in refpeU ofage^ and firm oj them menil-
on not littkoms at aO^ but what^s this to the purpofe, when
the intent was onely to prove tliis notion or exprefTion that
to bee a Difciplc and belong to ChriO: is all one. I altlyj I Afts 1 5. lo.
art'ued from AB, 1 5 . 1 ©♦ to ftiew that Children may hze caiied ex piamcd ini
Vffeiplefi kcaufetheyufanwhofeneckltho[efalJ£ teachers ivould ^indicmd.
have put thejoa^ of CircHmcifion^are called Vijcipkf^ and to bee
cAiledVlfiipkSy and it h apparent that they would have put it up-
on the Ififants ofheletvers at tvell as upon the beleevers themfe'ves^
bscaufe they would have impofd if after tf^ manner of Mofes
Lax9^ andprefitbatLaV^ flill to bee in fores. ^ you anfwerjy^a
feem nectfttie from ihin to call Infants Difcipkf ^ and you
firft deny the majory that all are to bee called Difcipks upon
v>hnfe neckl they would have put thatyoake. To which I anfwer,
without any further reply I leave it to the Reader to judge,
onelylthanke yoii for the rcafon you aJledge why you
deny the major, ^ecaufe it is not fiid they would pat it upon Vjr
fciplesonelyi I hope you will receive the fame law you give,
and therefore will reft fatisfied, when your (^Ife doe plead,
Johns and Chrifts Difciples required confellion of faith and
finncsofthofe whom they baptized, and when Chrift bid
hisApoftlesandDifcipl'-stirftto teach, then to baptize, I
fhall aniwcr, it is no where faid, they baptized omlj (uch,or
were to baptize ««e/yfiich. Secondly, you anfwer that t^»f
yoak^ofCircumcifton which necefjitated them to keep Mofes L<tw to
falvatim was not put upon Infant s^ but upon brethren n^hoiverc
taught tbeneceptieof it, 1 anfwcr,thcnF.i«/hinifelf was much
miftaken, who faid, that every one that was Circumeifed
was bound to kcepe^/'/e/ Law; and certaincly P<i«/ meant
t^at which thcfefalfe teachers alledged,evca Circumcifion
impofcd after the manner of Mofet, Laftly,you make your
fclfe merry with Mr. B/^fte, as if hec alluding to Efa. 49. 2«.
of kringingfoTints and daughters upon thiirfi^tsldersto Chriftf&e.

F f had

9 1 S Infdnf'Bdftifme f roved fr$m Scrrpture^

hadalledged that Text nothing to the purpofe^ I confe^Tc
lam not Satisfied, that that Text is cleare to the purpofe,
biit lam fully fatisfied;, that you often make a noyfe "with
Texts leflc to th^puipolcp as in bringing Alfj 19. for re-
bapdzation,! Cor.y. 34. to prove holinefle to bee meant
of Chaftrde:kand many others.
My next inftance was from the forementioned place,
Se^, 1 4. ^Hs 2 , whence I fhewed th Children offuch as hthtz e and art
Arts 1, 39. hjFptized are takerj into Covenant^ andtherefnre ^,j good confcqttenct
holds forth a are fo receive the Stale of the dmnant^ and that that Jextnoi
Inianr B^iprifm f^^^jp^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^J ^^ T^fthin the Covenant^ hnt alfo that a right
hy good iohapfifmtfs aconfeqncfjce of being within the Covenant'^ Your

confcquciKc. anfwcr is to this cSeS:, that you h^ve already anfrpend thif
flaeCy ssid thzt it if fo far from provingthii^ for nhich I afledge
il^that it proves the cdntrarj:, I cheerfully referrc the Reader
to my vindication of this place, Seft 6 . Part 3 . I added, wee
jlxamples of have likewifc examples enough by good confequence. Firft,
In&nr Baptifm J Qieigired that the Ge^U teol^ place by bringinff^ in whole bgupJds
fcq«encc^" ^ li[?f/c^/«€r admkiflrstim alfo did j you alledge to the con-
' trarjr feverall examples page i ;8j 1 3p. that it was not cen^
ftantlj fb^nor did I ever fay it was fb alwayes or conftantly
cither among Jcwes or Chriftians; you alledgc the th»H-
fands cmvtrtedmihe AUs^ the Ciiie of Samaria^ and others,
jet no mention of the whole himfhold^ yet poflibly their whole
houfholdsdid come in with them, the Scripture fpeakes no-
thing to the Contrary, how ever I allcdge it not, nor doth
the caufe depend upon it 5 I alledged many houlholds who
were baptized, Corneliti^ ^i\d his houfhold, the f^ylor and
his houfbold, the houfhold of Stephantn^oi Crijpuf^of jiri-
flohfth(§^o(NarciflM and feverall others 5 to all which you
anlwer, thii tmefi ^ee interpreted bj other places^ rrhich when
they expre£e the haptizSng of the honpold^ they expreffe alfo the be^
kevingor nceivwg ofthevpord 4^j the vrhole hot/fiold^ and that
fommmis the houfe v put for the people of gremb in the huje-^ but
who taught you it muft bee fo interpreted? hee that will may
force fuch an interpretation upon himfelfe, and k is hard
t© open the eyes of a pr«judiced man, but I fore not, tiyit
when you willj that you (hall never findc fo good evidence
' out

I/ffAnf-Raptifmef roved from Scripture. 2f 9

out of the houQiolds eating the PafleoTtrj Exod. I2, there*
by to prove that women did eate the Pafleover, as this
proves that the Infants of tlie houfe were baptized, be-
can le according to your pi-inciples wome-n might not bee
numbred amongft the Circumcikd j and the Law was plain
that no uncircumcifed perfon might eate the PaBeover,
whereas on this liand for Infants bapciline, it i« not to bee
doubted^ but that there were Tome Infants amongft thefe
lioufholds who were baptized^ and no Law made again ft
the baptizbg of them. And for your cvafion that though it b^t
fimetmesfaidhoujhuldjtverelxd^tizedy jefit ii faid tbofi ifimj-
holdj received t he rvord^ though diis mig^ht be pleaded conoei^
nnig fame of them, yet there is no evidence why you (hould
ipcake it of a/^ of diem. And whereas you further allcdgc,
tnat a boHJl isfimttimes tal^n for the gronme perfon j in thtH boiifet
Cthough all theScript^ires which you mention a^e not fit in*
llances) it may very well bee granted, and hurts not nief,un-
lefle you can prove that it muH bee lb meant : 1 hayc better
Warrant to affirme concerning the Jaylors hou^, of whom
ItisfaidFj/^/preachtf^^i/i^j/^^/^-zf ffere in bis bouje^ that
eidier there were no Infants in that houfe, or that the prea*
ching of the word to all in the houfe is to bee limittd fr§
fiihjcdtd mjteriato themuho were capable of prcaching^and
yec the reli received baptiiine wh o w ere capable of it. And
thus I have cleared and vindicated my firft and great Argu-
ment, Infanuare (ctdcr^Uytbcrefore ibey mafi fefignati> tbzy
dre in Covenant J ibtrefon the initial! Jeak 9f ibc C^enant be
longs unto them, I proceed to the (econd.

My (econd Argument was to this efied \ the lufantt tfhtUt'
vers even while they are Infant j art m^defjcrtak^rs (f the inward ^ « . -
gra^e ofBiptifrne at weBof grofPn^ mm r»bs are vifbU pr<f(^rd^ > * 5
tberefurc they may and gh^ to receive Bjptifme ^ nbicb it the i^^^^j^^ ^^
oHtwardfgne of this invfard grace. In your an(wer you grant p^bJc of 4ie
the wjjor, that aU who partake of the inward grace rAoy partMke grace whcrco<
Ota of the outward figne^ and thit no Antipxdohaftifi will denf Bapti&ueist
«^H, but then you enquire what I meanc by i^<2Vi>»g ffc^^iag ^* '
fignifiedy andymfuppoftl doenothold that aU InfmtS rfklee-
Z'erj itjve M^uaUy the inward grace fiffiifod by isftifrnty no

F f 2 ifldocd

Infdnt'Boftijfne^fronJcd fnm Scripture.

indeed Sir, nor do I thinke that you conceive that all grown
perfons who arc vifibleprofcffors have it. la your anjfwer
to the minor propofition that Infant j of vpiU at gron>m mm
urepartjkirs of the iriPfatd grace^ according to your ufiiall
courfcj you enquire after a great many ienfcSj whether I
mcznekoi^ potentially jving it y or a&nall having it^ whether
I meanc oneljform have it aSttmllj^othrs potentially ; in one feftje
the ar^ment hatbfonre ferine J^ in another forme^ the argiment
will emc/tfde hut for the haptizang of f&me Infants^ then you
enter into SLdiCcouvTc upon the Lutherans^ and about a hookje
intitukd^B jpttfmdl regeneration of eltEl Inf^ts 5 with which
you fayDoftor Featley concurs^and ofa book written by S,C,
Intituled, A Chrifiians plea for Infants Baftifmey which holds
pofitions fbmewhat like the Luther ans^ all which you pro-
feflc you mention to difcoverwhat fluffc the Pedobaptifts
doc feed the people withall, you might have added, to
worke prejudice in your RcaderSj andto (hew your owne
readingjandto fwell up a volume, otherwife qmrfitm hac >
my meaning is as plaine as the high way, that as Infants arc
to bee reputed to tielong to the Covenant as well as grown
Vifible profcfTors ( which was the drift of my firft Argu-
ment) To the fcope of thisisto flicw that they are hi the
fame capacitieto partake of the inward grace of the Cove-
nant, while they are Infants, as there is of grown vifiblc
profeffors; and that they arc notonely capable ofii^ but
mahy of them are aftually partakers of it as well as grown
men, and con(equently that wee have the fame ground to
lookuponandjudgelnfantsof beleeversto bee regenerate
as upon grown men by a vifible profeflion, there being to
us no infallible ground of certaintic,butof charity,for the
one nor for the other^and that their viiiblc right to the Co-
venant and the many promises of God made to the feed of
the faithful! are as good evidences to ground this judgement
upon, as the cxternall lignes which growne men can give,
and therefore whereas you fay, that all the Infants of belee"
vers J or the Infants ofhfkevtrs in as much they are the Infants of
believers ^are a&itallj partakers of the inrfiard grace ofBaptifmey
^Ife the Argument i^illn^ferve for my purpoje't-l utterly deny^

that

thatthisistheConclufiontobeproved^ or that my ai^ii^
mcnt is not to the purpoie, unlefle I undertake to prove
this5 for I argue in the like cafe from grown men who

are vifible Profeflbrs, thus; M voh) an pjruk^ri of the
inward grace of Baptifm^ may and ought io partah^ of the out-
rvard figne and feakj, but vifibleF raft jfors are partakers^ &c.
This minor is lyable to the (ame exceptions that the other
is, for who knows not that many viiible Profrflbrs have
not die invisible grace. That many are called 5 when but few
are chofetit and yetyour felf doe hold, that we may de fide,
om of faith & ajjuranceythat we do it according io Gods will^app/y
thd outward pgmt6 them^ though we have nothing but charity to
tna^e m conceive the inward graces to be in /iS^ew^Neither can we
by the judgement of charity think that all vifible Profeflbrs
taken together in a lumpe have the inward grace; the Scrip-
ture (which is the rule of our charity) having declared the
conu'ary, our charity onely warrants us to judge of every
fingle peribn^ when poffibly we may know no more againft
the one, then againft the other, though we know there are
fomefalfe hearted amongft them :The fame is to be faid for
Infants- and this I proved out of the Scripture, Mark^ i o.
To fm» ^el$ngs the kingdom of God^ and in my Sermon J Ma)\io.
vindicated this Text from the glofTes which the Anabaptifts ^'cated from
would pi« upon it : your exceptions againft it are fuch as ^"^^ T'""^^' ^^
thefe, it U p^ffible ibey were not very little ones -^ poffibly our ^^P"*^''^
Saviour meant not of tbim^ but of fuch as they^ for the word'
is7i/«7wy 0] fmhynoi^^rtof of theft : poflibly,i&t?r«w & fimiii"
urm, of thcfc and the lil^e : poifibly, they were not the children of
hiktvcrs : pollibly., it vs meant onejjt of ele^ Infants , that ikfi
were ek^yandfhmldin time he called', hutyet^ iky you^ grant atf,
and it will not hence fallow y that all Infants of beleevers have
right to invifihle grace • yea^ it here fuits better for confirmation^
then for baptifme^ yea^that if H rather an evidence Chrifi would
ngs havelnfantsbaptizedy becaufi he ordered not thefe Infants to
htehaptizid. But Sir, how many of thefe things woold
you have called diftates in another,afl[ertionj without proof
and to how little purpofe arc all thefe things brought in >
jourfclfgrantcnougntofervcmy turnc; you grant thattkc

5 f 3 king-

virr°

2^2 infdfit'BaftifM frovtdfrom Scripture.

kingdom of heaven did belong to tbifi Infantt y and I ia-
tended from this inftance not to prove that all Infants of
beleerersaremadepartakersof favinggrace, hv\t that In-
j&nts in their infantile age, are capable of inward grace^and
fome of them aftaally partakers of it ; this is enough for
nic; and more then this cannot be (aid of growne men who
are vifible Profeflbrs. I added in my Sermon^sa one branch
of a rea(bn> ibat then ff mihing belonging to the initiation and
being of a Chrijiian ^whereefBaptifme is afeahy n^hereof Infants
arc not capable^ of well as ^rown men\ as receiving the holy Ghofi^
tmiQn with Cbrip^ pardon offinme^ regeneration^ etcmaU life.
Your anfwer isa Icofe out o^ Horace^ Amphora c^pit infiituiy
&c. 1 fhoH^d prove y fay you, tb^it aS I?ffants of beUeven
are aUuaUy partakers y and in peadofthifj Iprsve tbej^re capa^
ble of if. Sir, this is but one part oFmy rea(bn ; and I un-
dertook not to prove that all infants, but onely %hax fimi are
partakers of it»

I added, and it is further conpderahky that in the rvsrh^g that
inx9aYdgrace^ef which baptifme Utbe fimz and ftsle^ all Tvh»
p4rtake of tb atgracey are hut meere Patients . and therefore In-
fants are of ftjuhjMs to hjve it wrcHjJjt in them , ss gron>ne
mew, and the mofi growne rm^ art inno morefiinejfe to receive this
grace yWhen it is given the/n^ in refpc^ either of faith *r repentance y
which they jet have^ then a very little chiN^ &c. You anfwer,
by demanding whether I bring aU this as apronfe^ that all in-
fants baVi ity or that they are capable of it • or rpkether I intend
it nt afart'ur argument ^ th.tt baptlfme is to he given to thofe , tth9
are capable vf the fir fi gracey which btcaufe Infants are as nfcU at
grown men^ therefore they are to be baptized j hut then ym deny
the major ^f or aperfon it not ta ^cbaptizjidybecaufe he may hive
gracty hat becaufe hi h^th it. Sir, I brought it to prove that
which was in baud, 27i;s. that Infants are capable of it as
well as grown men, and that fome of them are partakers
of it as wcU as grown men; and therefore their Infant-age
caanotbepleadedagainflthem, as if inward grace could
not wwpe^re to their prelent condition. And as for that
you addc. That bapttjme it tohtadminifiredy net to them who
tnayhavt grace^ hut to them who have it* Then it ftcmes they

are

Iffdm-Baftifmift^'t^dfrm Serif ture. 223

are all wrongly bapuzed who have not inward grace 5 and
fo (according to your ownc expreffion^ baptifme tofuch is
as a feal fti to a blank; yet you know^ even the Apoftles
themfelves baptized many who were in no better condition :
and your fclfc afterward grant, 7hat a Mjnifier maj de fid«
adminifefihk Sacrament 'to fuch as make avijihle frofejjion^
though htUnoi ajpiredef anj ivrpard grace, I have often pro-
ved, that a right to bee reckoned to belong to the viiible
Churchy is a uifficient warrant to adniinifter the feal of ad-
miilion. Sceondly^youmuch trouble your (elii tofindc
out what I meanc hj fie firji grace : whether the free favour
of God^ or the Covenant of gra<:e i wbetba if Imeane ihefirjh
grace ia txtcutim^ I pitdti Hponjfifi ijicatietf, or regeneration^
or adaptim • and then inquire vphich is the fecond gract^ But
allthisisbutfeekingaknotinarufh. I am perfwaded all
other Readers undcrfiood me t« meanc by the firft grace^all
thacgrace which is requifite to the being of a Chrillian, u-
nion with Cbriftj forgivcnciTe of fin^ tfeeindwelling of the
holy Gho^3 as a principle of a ntwlife , and your fclfc fay
more then once^ that baptifae is the facrament of our ini-
tiation^and that which exhibits us members both of Chrift
arhd of his Churchj and therefore thus needlefly to quarrell
about things wherdnyour felfconcurre with mee , is too
too vain^Laftlyjyou have ibmewhat to fay to that of onr
hdng meerjypajjive in enrfirji c^fjverfi§fj^zndyoii tel your rea-
der, what the divines ef great Britaine faid in the ^ymdj of
Vort^ of fame preparathfis going htfore converfion : and what
Mr, Rutherford^ D^r^Ttpifje^ and Dr. T rep on hive delivered
about this point. And after a needlefle fhewing that you have
read thcfc Authors 5 you grant as much as I contend foi^,
That the tak^gar^aytheheart of flone^ and infujingof a prinr-
ciple ofnew lifepi onJy G^ds vporl^and that a nm heart ^Jiiijj^^c^
are the effeUsof converting grace-^ and that inthefe things rpee are
papve: in fummejyou are of my judgement in this point,
that Infants are capable of new life, and (bme of them par-
takers of it : and I likewife confeiit with you, and thofe
above mcHttoned Reverend Divines^ that in Godsuliiall
way of working upon grown mcn^ there are ibme prepar

ration^

^^4 uf^t'BdftifmepHvedfrm S^riptffre.

rationJ f» )r cotiverfion, beforeconvcrfion it ftlfe, in which
preparations men are not nieercly paflive; but in the recei-
ving of the principle of new life, all men arc mecrely pa(-
fiye. I know you will owne that exprcffion of Auguflme^
^idagitlibirum arbitrinm^, fanatHt. I conclude this ar-
gument of baptizing Infants, with a Q5cech of BiUarmlmy
there is, faith he, no impediment rvby Infanti may not Bee hap^
.Belk'\ hb,idt fiz^d^ neccx parte prohlbitionis alicujus divine, &e. veh
BAftifmoy<i^>% fk^r from ^n^ divimprabibitionynoronthe part of the Sacrament
adminiftrtd^ nor on tbeparf ef tbe Minifler^ adminipring^mr on
ibe Infant J part to tpbom it it to bee admimflred, nor m the Chttr-
chts part in wbich it is admlnifired. Pxdo-baptifme there-
fore is rightly coatinucd in the Chriflian Church.

PAR T. IV.

Se&. I . ¥ Proceed now briefly to examine what you have (aid a-

Anfwersro Igainftthat which you arepleafed to make the fourth
©bjeaions Part of my Sermon, though I know no reafbn ofthis your
againft Infant- Aiialyfis : Had I indeed made this an answer of all the ob-
Baptifme, jeft ions which I undcrtooke to anfwcr^you might have cal-
led it fo; but you know well enough, that I intended here
onely to (atisfiethcleObjeftions which lye moft properly
againft this (econd argument , as before I anfwered what
was moft properly objefted againft the firft argument jhow-
cver, I (hail take it as I findc it , and examine what ftrength
you have added to thefe ObjcSions.
ChjeS. I. The fir ft Objeftion I undertoofce to anfwer, was to this

t rom Mat, 28. ipurpoic^Tbsugb Infants are capable of tbefe tbin£r , ant^ that
tbey arerprougbt by Cbrifi in many Infamr^yet vne may not bap-
tize themy becanfi according to Scrtpture patttrny both of Cbri /?/
command^ Mattb. 28, in bis infiimtim ofbaptifmty and Jobn
the Baptip^ Cbrifts Difeiples and JpoJl/eSy tb^ altPayes iaugbty
and madetbem difeiples by teaching , before they baptized any .
And to make this argument the more plaufible, you adde,
Itis apnof prophaningibatSacramcnty when the inpitution is

altered

J»fm'SaftifmfUvedfr$m SCrifmi. iij

altered by [uhraBienor Addition^ and that it was f leaded hy the
Nort'Coufermifij^ that it if Wiil-'nifrjhip ta adminifler the SaCra^
merits by addition of any thing to thtm , hmt cireumfiances t^hiS
are alike reqmfite to dviU aUi§fJS y now the ftrfont to be haptizjed
cannot he conceived a metre eircumftance^ hut helongt nteeffarilj fa
the adminipration oftvorjhip^ m neU sf the perfm hapttzing^ if
theperfovj receiving the Lords Supper,

I anfwer, I intend not needlefly to irultiply words, and
therefore doe grant that to apply Saeramenis-toperfons to
whomtheybelongnot by the Lords appointment is a pro-
phanation of them. Now that it i$ fo in this caie, you goc
about to prove out of this 28 Mat. Becauje the inRitutm
af points onelj difcifies ofaU N aliens to he baptizjed^ and Infants
aremtfftch. Thtejoubave made good (^sls you fsLj^ Se^, i^»
Tart 3 . XoH adde^ ChriUs order ihtPS appoints it^ vphieh mu^
kil{epf^n this pointy as wcU Ai in examination before the Lords
Supper , 1 Cor. I !• 28. &c, and that by the infimtion they art
iihee baptized into the name of the F athery Sony and holy Ghop^
that isy with invocation of the name of the Lerdy which Infants
cannot doe -^ mth devoting themfilves to the ftrvice and adberenu
efGod^ rvhich Infants cannot doe . tfsat prefently aftir iaptijme^
the baptized are to be taught to oBjerve whatfoever Cbrift command
dcdthem^n^hicb Infants are not capable ef-^ that JohnBaptifi
and the Jpnfiles alm^ajes made prefeffion of repentance and faith ,
an antecedent toBaptilm^wbich Infants cannot make^To all this I
anfwerjFirrr^thisof iT/^«^. 2S. is not the inftitution of
Baptiimc^ it wa$ inftitutcd long before to be the fealc of the
Covenant, it is onely an enlargement of their Commlflion, ,
whereas before they were onely to goe to the loft {heepe of
the houfe orifiael, now they were to goe into all the
Worki. You rcply^ /fit ^c not thefrfi inftitHtion ofBaptiJmy
yet it isanir-^Ltutionof^ptfme to w pcntiks'^ and therefore the
rule by rphich Minivers are to baptize^ or if noty n?ee mufiMfeiv
another inftitufion^ elfe vpe cannot acquit it from WiU»vp$rfhip.
1 anlwcr^ all this is abundantly anfwered before, SeB,i^.
T^t 3 . A nd I add this inlargenient of their Commillion is
very unfitly called by'you an inftitution ofbapti/m unto MfAthcir
CommiiTion at the fame time was ialarged to preach to

G g the

^^f Jnfdm^Bdftifm fr&vtdftpm Scrifttnre.

theGcntilcs, willyoucallthatanlnfdcution of Preaching?
and that the method of preaching to us Gentiles muft bee
A r c s to o- ^c^^^*^ °"^ of this place ? I know you will not. For the reft
a^]^*y Ar-' of your.petty reafons above alledgcd^ they refolve feverall
gumcntsor ofthcHi into one and the fame : C^ri/lj Wer ^ ( fay you)
tAtJ<irnhs6MX feaebhtfbimidgoe before hjpizhJ^'y is not that the fame \vith
of Mar. 18. thisjT w^/ men mufl U made difiipies hj pr^sching^ he/ore they h

hapihiJid} the anlwer to the one doth fully fatisfie the other. •
But your third reafon Is a ftrange one, Tbej mufl bee hapti^
zed into the name of the Fathir^ the Ssn^ and the holj GhoU^ that
fi^ (iay you) tiphh imocatlon of the 'Name of the Lord: then it
iccms if the party baptized call upon the name /of the Lord
by pray er, that's ail that is intended b ; baptizing into the
name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghoft ; that the name
of God (liould be invocatcd at the adminiftration of Bap-
tifme, and of Circunicifion , and of every Sacrament, is
moft true^ but that baptizing into the name of the Father,
Son, and holy Gh ofl^fliould be interpreted to be invocation
of Gods name 5 and fo to make Baptifine and Prayer all
onc# is ftrange Divinity ; it is true, Vaul was exhorted to
pray or call upon Gods name when he was to bee baptized,
Aas 22*16. but doth it prove that his Baptifae andPray-
er was all one^ it may be you mcane onely this, that every
pcrfon who is baptized, muft be able himfelf at the time of
his baptifhie to pray^ if that bee your meaning, prove it by
your next; fhew why more at Baptifnic then at Circumci-
fion. As for your fourth^ were not the Infents of the Jews
devoted to God by Ciraimcifio n, though they could not
adual ly devote thei^felve^ To your fifth,T^jf/ they were to
tcacbihem as foonofthej^.hadh^ptiz^d them'y and that there-
fore none wcte to be bapti2ed,unlefle they were fit prefent-
ly after their Bapti/me, to leamc the reft of their duty. I
anfwer, this alfo is fufficiently anfwered in Se&, 1 3. Part 3.
and I further adde, that baptized perfons ought indeed to
be taught all thatChrift commands them, and To likewife
werccircumcifed perfons, but not prefently^ onely as they
wcrecapableof it, and able to receive it. And as for the
ferfinjb^ptizidbfJokn^andChripj difcipkt^^ I have before

an-

Infant'Bdfnfme proved from Scriptutt* ' %Yf

anfw^ered that ic cannot appeare chat they baptizeJi'na of*
other biicfuch as made profeffiou of faith and repentance;
and if it were granted^ ir follows not, that therefore no 6-
thcr may be baptized^ their prd<^ice is a good rulcp tliough
not a fill] rule^ as I (hewed, 5e^. 1 3 . ?art^. And whereas
you fay, Ioh?ibjftiz/.dno7ji butuprnprafeffion ifrepttitjmt.jo\\
would have a hard task to prove k^ if any man (hould put
you to it 5 to prove (f fay) th at hh?: did inipofe or require
confellion of iin before baptifme, it is faid hee baptized
them "^ (O^Tctvo/fl J', to repentance; not w^^tk^ f a^ as ftated in
a<^uall repentance 5 and his calling for repentance, and
preaching the Baptifrne of repentance, fhcwthat this was
the Icffon they were all to learn-'j not that they muft all ma-
nifcfc that they had it bcfoix- he baptized them; and though
fomc did makec{.»nfcffion of their nnnes, yetyou can never
prove that all did it* or were tyed to it. Sure I am , I meet
with very learned Men who judge thus, ^^ That their con-
* ^ felfion of finncs was not becauic confeifion iras a nccefla-
** ryweiitf/« to all who (hould receive Baptifme, but be-
caufe heretofore Bagti/rne had initiated into Judakfme,
and fo to Legal] pertormancfs; and the men who came
^^ to be baptizSl of ]»hn^ were fuch who had been educated
** in an opinion of Juftiiication by works of the Law:
'"^ and therefore ]ohn in calling for repentance,did but clear
'* his Baptifme from rji/conftru^ionjeil: they (hould think
*^ it to be a Baptifme obliging to legoJI performances, as
*^ that was of old, he wouLl teach them that his Baptilm
^^ wasaBaptifmeof repentance and faith in Chriit, and
*^ (b doth but re^ki fie thoferelyers upon their owne righ-
*^ teoufiicfle,inthe right do^rine of Juitification , which
^'^ the Golpel now began tot^rach, contrary to their le-
^' gall cpaceited rjghteoufhelTe; and that therefore his
^* calling for repentance and beJiefe iw him .that (hould
*^' come afeer, did more (hew the nature of the Golpel , to
** which his Baptifme was the intodu^kion, then the
*^ nature of the Sacrament of Baptifme it felfc, or the me-
" thod in which it was to be adminiilred ; and i-7ich thefc
*^ accords the interpretation faul made of ]obm bapcifme,

Gg 2 ' A^s

<c

ial lnfanuBAftifmifri>vedfr0m Smpturc.

« ASs I p. 4. and conftqnmtly that the confeffioa required
*' had fpeciall relation to theconditionol: theperfons wha
** came to be bapti2ed5 and was not ntcefiary for all, more
** would be required of a heretick for his admiilion into the
*^ bofbm- of the Church,then is reqiiifitcto be required of
a child. But however., I thinke it will b« hard fo;- you to
confute this. I (hall leave it to the Judicious Readers confi-
deration^ and not infift uponit^ but iliall readily grant that
all Jews and Pagans fo borne and bred, were not baptiacd
till they profelTed their faith and repentance , becaufe the
Jewswercallto come under a new adminirtratipn, and
the Gentiles till then were wholly aliens from the Cove*
nant of grace, and then their Infants came in in their Pa-
rents right. But (ay you. This grant that the hrves n^ho «•/.
ready were in Covenant^ rtPe^e to make Confiffwn before thy r^ere
baptized^ is afufficient proofe that the adm'wijiratipn ofCircum"
cifioTZj if not the adminiflration under zphich rve norp are : and
that overthrows all virtuafl confequences from Circumcifi-
on to Bapti/hic. I reply^ who ever faid that this admini-
flration is the fame with theirs? it is the fame Covenant^
but a new admlniftration. Andastothatyoufay^ This 0-
verthrows aU virtusU confiqmnces fam Circumcififfn i§ Bap^
fifme^y I have fo abundantly juftified this before, that I fhali
not trouble the Reader with it againe, though you repeats
this fo often , that I am ready to thinJce you hope your rea-
der will beleevcyou in oneplace^if he doc not in the other.
You adde my faying. That t heir l^^f ami were to eome in enely
intheir parents right ^ doth overthrow my fecoiid Argtifmnt^becaufi
that is grounded up9n a right t^hich Infants hadif their orvn^ viz.
participatien «f the grace ef the Saeram^m. I a nfwer, belike
then if ^ny had pleaded thus for the Jewes Infants,
That to Infants^ as rt^ell ae groxr>ne men , Gifd commnnica^
fed the fpirituall part of Circumcipon^ therefore thy mi^kt hfe cir^
cMmcifd ^ you would anfwer, that that Argument would
overthrow their right from their birth-privilcdge. I ra-
ther (hould judge it to be a fecond good Argument for their
Circumciiion; the truth is^ they a^^e both grounds of 6ods
ownc appointing: and the fecomJ is a farther manifeftati-

on

£nf4»t "BxftifmtfrcViAfrdm SiriftHre. 27 f

on of their right to the Sacrament, God not oncly giving
them a viiible ftanding in his Church, becauie they are the
feed of the faithfull, but among them, who are Infants as
well as among growne men doth worke inward grace by
his holy Spirit according to his good plcafiire. Whereas
you addc, tff^f you canmt jet difeerne hut that our gr9Hnds for
P^dibafiifine are worft then the ^Papifij and ancients^ tpha build
it updntbe neceptie of ^aptifme fo fahation • I muft needs tell
you, your reipe£^ to the reformed Churches in this is very
ifmall, whilityou thinke the Papifts ground of damnation
of Infants not baptized is not Co ill as the Proteftants, who
baptize them becaule they looke upon them as within the
Covenant of grace; I will not aggravate this, I hope in
time you will lee it and beron7 for it.

But you glory much in the advantage you thinke you
have got J, from that which followes in my Sermon, the
Heathen nationj T»ho were to bet converted to Chrift were jet n^ith^
out the Covenant of grace ^ and their children coM have no right
untiU themfelves rpire brought iw, and therefore no marvaik though
both John andfhrifij Dijcifkj and^pofiles did teach before tbej "
baptized^hecaHfethenno other rpere capable of haptifmey in this
(fay you) 1 grant many things rvhich dse yeeld the caufe : Sir,'
1 (hall not recall any one of them, make your beft of youir
advantage, i . Hence you colleft it fgllor^es that baptizing of
Infant J is not according to lohnSyand Chrifij VifcipUs^ and the A--
p9JllejpraSijfe:lsinfwcr3 it no wayes followes, if you take
but that in which immediatly followes , that their Infants
cime in in thtir parents right, 2. Hence I grant (fay you)
that no other were tapable 0f Baptifme^ but whciehi I belccch
you have I granted the caufe in faying their Infants v;FQrG
not capable of it till their Parents came in, and when they
did come in, their children came in alfo by vcrtue of the Co-
venant. What need you keepe fuch a coylc in asking n^ht-
thrhekever shad then no children^ or nhetlnr the Jpoftles had
no cemmiffioni or nhethr wee have a Commiffion if they bad not ?
you goe on and fay, I thinks tofalvt it thuf^ when once them'
fdves were infirH^ed ^nd baptized^ then their children jvere ca^
fahierfitby vertmoftbe Covenant .; Idocfo^ and what have

you

ajo Inftint'Bdftifme proved fr9)n Scripture.

yon to (ay againft it? why then fty you they wire capshk h
Johns time and the Apofilej time^ and thif dej^rcvej thatnhichi
fiid before J ihatihen none hut taught per fons vptre capable of Bjp-
tifrm-y but where did I fay fo ? I faid there was no exprcffe
mention made of any other, I faid alio Infants were not
capable till their Parents came in^ becaufe their Parents were ,
to come under this new adminiilration, but I ne^er laid,
w^cn their Parents were come in in Joh/j time and Chriils
timc^ that their children then were not capable of it. Yea^
I have (hewed good grounds by confcquence that thepra-
£i:i(e was ctherwife. Further youiayj it/cemes I ccu'd pro^
duce no Infiisuiion in the new adminiftration^ hut the hi^ituti-^
an of Circtftnclfion^ becaufe I fay the ehildrtn were capable by vet-
tueoftkeC^venant^ and the validitie of arpting from Circum-
^ifion hath been ccnfide^cdhifom: and you further zdAc:, thai
the Covenant h^mg the fame at aQ times^ of my f'rft conchficn
hdldfy the children of kievers were as capable in Johns time m
after '^ and/^»f you (ky my words doeplaimfy interfere'^ lan-
fwcr, I have abundantly proved^ that this ground fron) the
Covenants being the fame, and our Infants right the lame
with theirs to theCovenantj and our Baptiirne fuccecding
in the roome and place of Circumcilion, is a ibiicient
ground for this praftile^ though there be no exprefle men-
tion of them in this new adminiftration j nor did I ever (ay
that Infants of beleevers vftvt not capable of it by vertue of
the Covenant in J^c^Wtime, fb that this Diumph of yours
is not the fruit of my interfering, but of yourouneblind-
nefleor tumbling. Whereas in the clofe of this Section I
faid, if any in the Jewip Church had received Commjffion to goe
^ndvn^h^other Cities Trofdjtes to them^ their Comnr.^m mufl
have fitnmthtM'^ goe teach and circumcife^ and yt if rrotfldnof
thence ha7;efollowedy th it none might h^e circumdfid Im Jffch as
ware fir jl taught j you aniwcr the CommiJJ'Cn muji haze had re-
ference in thi execution of it^ either to tbf eid infiifUtion of Cir-
Cumcifion^Gcn^ij* or to a new Inffitution^ and then it Wvuld
have been toldplaincly nhat and whom they weit t^j circamcjfe, I
reply, /uppoiing it had gone according ro the inflitutionj
■Cc/7. 1 y^ which C as you lay ) vv^as to drcumcjic iraltrs at

eight

Infant'BapiiJmi fr0vedfrcm Smftttre* jj i

eight dayes old not taught, I hope you will not % they
might ciraimci/e the vndlesoi any at eight dayes old^ al-
though their Parents were not taught, which is the caiQ
that I put, you cannot (I perceive) deny this cafe to bee
parallcD, oncly this arguing from Circumcifion to Baptifin
you cannot away with 5 but Sir, this reafoning is Juftificd
to be good, Tftmjnmtur ut iha*

Thefecond obje^ion I thus expreflcd-^ 7/ ^ (^prejlj faid^^^-^-

n?i

ikjt he tbjt hkeves aftdis hptiz,ed fjall biifavid^ fait bin Chrifl y^J^^J*
ii the Condition upon vp-hicb men may htc baptized^ And.m aiher bclccverv'-«<'"
nxbeltevers ntaj not he baptised \ children are un^ekevers^ *i^^f- noctobe ba^p*
fore they may not hee baptized;, they fay the negative if included ih^d,
under the affirmative , helteving U the affirmative , unbelee^
ving is the negative^ therefore nhin beleeverj are commanded to
be bapi ized^ nnhkcvtrs are forbidden to he hapt iz ed. This Ar-
gument i faid the Anabaptiftsdoe very much glory in • my , r
anfwer to it was to this tffed: 5 that if this Argument hjvi any "■' ^
ftrenph at all agalnft the baptizing^ it hath mnch morefirength
againfi the falvation of Infants^ becaufe it ii exprtftj faid both
affirmatively and negaii'^ely^ bee that bekiVdh JhiU bee faved,
but bee that beleeves not (haS bee damned-^ tvhereoi though it bit
faid affirmatively hee that beleeveth and ii laptizedp^all bee fa-
vcjiy it ii not faid hee that is not baptised fiaU not bee faved^
looke by what diftinftion they will maintaine the (al-
vation ot Infants agarinft this Argument, by the fame will
Imoreclearelyjuftifie thebaptifine of Infants againft this
argument. I adde now further^if they t^e beleevers in a
contradiftinftion to Infidells, then I fay Infants of beleevers
are beleevcrsi,a6 well as the children of Infidells are Infidells^
if they take beleevers in a more reftrained fenfefor pofitivc
andaftuall fiutli, then I deny that this is a ncceffary con-
dition required to bee found and manifefted in every one
wh o is t o bee baptized, as I have at large proved before^ aixi
your felk cannot deny. To this Argument your an(wer is
ondy this, that yon mmnotthi Argument^ ondy thus farre
youownc it, viz. that ^frofeffion of faith it a prt^requifite
tQ Baptijwep and fo i$ vpis amounted in the dayel%f Jftfiin

Martyr^

5 J J InfAm-BAftifrnt fr$vedfrm Scripture.

Marijfi Tertnllian) Cy^rian^ and Auguftine^ &c.

But I reply, though you dare not owne this Argument,
yet it ftands upon the fame ground that the reft of yo»r ar-
guments doe, and upon the fame grounds that many of
your expreifions doe, fuch. as this. That men are not tobet hap^
iiztd^ becaufe they may havegracej hnt bec^ufi ibey have it. But
now you will not ftick to this. That to have true faith , is a
pre-requifite toBaptifm^you are contented with an outward
confeilion of it onely, and that a vilible pr ofelli on gives
right to a vifible membcrfbip, and confcquendy that a via-
ble memberfeip gives a right to Baptifme, which is the
thing I have been contending for all this while. As for what
you adde. That in the dayes of lufiin Martyr^ TertuHian, Cy-
frU?7^ and To forward, thisconfellion before baptifme was
continued : it is true , it was continued for thofe that had
been Pagans and Infidels, that they (hould make fuch a con-
fellion before Baptifme; and it is as true, that in their days
Sei^. 2. intants of Chriitians were baptized.

VVeknown»t 3' I faid it waS ob jcfted , Thztthouoh Infants are capdhlesf

what Infants the inward gra<x^ and that God doth ejfeEIuaUy voork^ in fome of

have grace,er^o thtm^yet that is mjufficient warramf&r us to baptize all of tberr^

we may not ^y^^ j^^.^^ ^^ ^y^^ Infants the Lord did fo worke , v^ee tni^t

*"^' baptize thofe Infants^ but that ne cannet k^n^jv hj any ordinary

y^ay of kripwUdgt^ therefore jve may nni baptize any of ihcm^ hut

tpait to fee ) rvhen and in xpbom God n?ill rvorhe the thing fignifed^

Anfw» and then apply the figm to them. You anlwer, ibis i^ granted ^that

if by Ttvelation it Could bee kncwHe , fiich as have this intpard

grace might he baptized*^ and that tbffe vpho are thu^ imitulcd are

not through tf^ant of an injl itution to be excluded. To my un -

derflandingthis overthrows all which you have hitherto

contended for- for then if Wee can prove that Infants arc

fiieh^ as to whom this Sacrament belongs , by your owne

grant they are not to be excluded for want of an inftituti-

on; now I have proved that Infants of Seleevers arc fiich as

to whom the Sacrament doth belong : yea, and you'' lelfe

grant,tbittrue faith is not a needful! pre requifrte to the ad-

miniftration of Baptifme, Befides, ] defirc before I leave

the

InfAHUBaftifmefrovtdfrom Serif tm<. 2t2

thispafTagetoknowofyouj how you will reconcile this
with that which you (pake, pag* 162. Ihat there is a flaint
T^xtreqHiringcunfiJfionbeJoreBaftiJhKy tbougb not h^firt Or*
cHmcipon, I hope you doc not think a regenerate babe can
make a confedion ofits faith ; (iireJy thefe two things doc
much differ, Gods inward revealing that he hath fanftiiS-
ed a child>and the ciiilds own profeffion or confeffionjGod
revealed thac Saul was hid behind the fiufie , bui this was
not'S'^^/zowneconfeffion ♦ God revealed to the Prophet
Ahijab^ that the difguiied woman was Jeroboamj wife^ btH
that was not her owneconfclfion* Myaniwertathisobjc-
diion was. That our knowledge that Gad bath nffeUually wrought
the thingpgnified^ it not the conditian upon which we are to apply
thefeakt he never nquiredtbjt we fiould l^aw that tbey art cer-
tainly converted whom we admit to 'Bapt'jfme , we are indeed t$
knoi» that they have in thtm the condition which mnfi warrant ut
to adminifter thefigneynot that which mak^s themp^jfejfedoftbe
thing fignified^fallibk conjt^ures are not to be our \uU in admi'
firir^g Sacraments either to In^jints or grownemenyb^ a k^ownt
rtJe vf the fFerd^ out of which wt tnu^ be able to make up fucb
^judgtmenty that our admini^f ration may be offaitb^ as wed at
out of charity* To all this you aflfent, and consequently that
there is nothmg needfuil according to the Word, but a
viiible right- and then whatis become of ail your pleading>
That btcauje we cannot h^ow that all infants ofb^leevers have toe
Jnwarid gracCy we may not therefore baptize themi this hold you
havenovv quitted ; and when once you have proved that
they Jiave not a viiible right to bee reckoned and accounted
to belong to the viiible Church, I promife you to quit aU
mine.

W hereas I adde( 1, That I dct*hted whether in cafi Peter, or
-FauJ C9idd by the Spirit gf revdation have Ipottn that Ananiafl^
f f I jAlexander, xj^tfK/^ have prated no ktter ihiuhyposrites^ w^
ther tbey either would or o/fght to have refufed ibemjrotn hapiifme^
whiles they made tbatpuhliek^ profeffion , upon which others wtre
admitted^ who in the^.tvent provtdnp better then thojt were* Yon
think they would and ought, becaufe tin end offucb 4n mir^
wdinary revelation^ would be towamthmmttotdmitfttebper"

Hk fm.

3 ^^ InfdnUBAftijwi frpved from Serif tun.

ftns. I anfwerj the caiile depends not upon it, whetheryour
con)e£ture or mine be righteft in this particular; and I con-
fcffc) (hould luch an extraordinary revelation be made pur-
poicly to warne them not to admit (uch perfons^that would
be equivalent to a prohibition; but might not fuch a thing
be revealed for other ends? Cbrift knew that Judat would
provea devill, yet he admitted him not onely to baptiihie,
but Apoftle[hip5 and fincc your (elfc doe grant that we have
awarrant//e jS^fjOutof faith, and not out of charity onely,
to admit men into vilible communion by baptifmc, upon
an cxtcrnall confeffion onely- I cannotjunderlland why my
private knowledge upon a particular revelation of a mans
inward condition, (hould be a (ufticient barre againft pro-
ceeding according to the ordinary rule, if I were infallibly
affuredthatfome glorious proFedor were no better then
an hjqpocrite, were that fufficieut warrant to deny the Sa-
crament ofthe Loi'ds Supper to him, fo long as his life was
unblamable before the Church ?

Laftly, I added. That in thit the rule to direU our k^oivkdgf^
isaspljimfor lafanis of forgrotvm men^ the rule ksving heene
altvjyes tbis^ that grown men who ivere Ur angers from the Cove^
nam ef Gud, Fjg^Tis^ or Hiathms (hould np^n their being in'
^ruBed^ andnponprofeffion of their faith , andpromift to tpalki -
according to the rule of the Gcfpd^ bee received and added to the
Churchy and madepirtah^rs of the Sacrament of admtfjion , and
their Infants to come in with them 5 ^otb forts upon their admijji"
onto he charitably hoped ofy untili thygive fignes to the contrary 5
ehar'ity hei^Qg hoHsdfromthijik}n^ eviU ofthem^nBt hound to con^
^ude certainly of any •f them. Your onely exception againft
this is, wondering that I dare fay ^ thtrftk to dirM our ^a?-
Udge^ is at plaint f^ r Infants of forgrowne men, I anlwcr, tru-
ly Sir,.by as pUine^ I intended onely the truth of the irule,
sbftt it may be as truly known as die other, thoughpoflibly
not fo clcarely. I deny not but \ had ipokcn more fitly in
iayingtheruleisplainefor Infants as well as forgrownc
lijeOj a«d that I have prQved abundantly.

-- '- My

Jn(m-tdftifinefr^edfr$mS€rifme. ^^j

My fourth Objeftion was. That aU n^ho enter into Cove- Seti. 4.
nam mafi fiipHlJfefir their fam of well as God Mh f^r h^-^ tk.y ohje^. 4,
fnHJi indent with Gndt(fperforme the heleever J part uf the Cove- Infants cannot
venant ^ rvell ^ God doth to performe kU part: My anfwcr Covenant , or
was, ihe Infants of Jem were ^ much iycd, ^ tk Infants of be- .Clvet'
ieeveri under the Gofpel, every one who was arcumcifed was boTind ^^^^ *
to keep the Law^jft they knew not what it meant y mr could have
the fame ufeofit n>ith their Parents andotkrsofdifcretion. You
ovm not thisObjcaion, nor fay any thing agahift my an-
fwen onely you except, T^jMi&rw#^^iwF whole booke^ I /«/>-
pofe there is the fame re^fon of the mixt Covenant made with A-
braham, and that it U the fame with the pure Covsnant of thtGof
pet and of every btleever as a/ Abraham , and of Baptifme as of
Circumcifion. I doe Coj and have juftified thefe thing to bee
true againft your exceptions. Y ou adde alfo, God comman-
ded the (fney but tio inhere commandidthe other ; which whether
he have or n o by good eonfequence, I leave the Reader to
judge, by what is already fpoke n.

I added in my Sermon, Godjeaks to them pre fently^u e. con-
ditionally, as I have before tewed, and when they come f*
years of dijcretion^theyfland obliged to the performance of it in
their owneperfottSy in the meane time Jefuf Cfjrift why is the
furety of iheCovenant^^andtheJurety of all the Covenanters^ if
-pleafed to be their fur ety : 8c this I illuftrated from things done
amongftmen, tlms^when fever aB parties ft and obliged in the
fame bondy they may feale at fiver aUiimes^ and jet be in force af"
tertpardtogether^ orevenachiidfealinginiffaTjey, may agnize^
an^ recognize thatjealing^ when they come to jeares of difcretion^
if then they tviU renoumt it^ as done when they underwood not^they
may f-ee themfelves^^if they plea fe, iftheyfinde the former a& a bur-
den to them^ fo faid I is it here, God U pleafed tofeale to infants
while ihtyarefucb^and accpts of fuch as fealeon their pMrts^ as
they are able to give in their infant-age^ expe^ing a further rati-
paiioft on their party when they are come to riper yeares '^ in the
tHeane time affordingthem the frtviledge of being reckoned unto
his J(mgdome and family rather then the devils , if when thy are
zrorvne wten^ they refufe to ft and to th is Covenant ^ thtre is no hurt
^ H h 2 dm

^^6 Ififant^BMftifme froved frem Script Mr el

donicnGodrfart^ let them ferve another God^ and take their lot
fir the time f come. To this you anfwer y Firtt;, th is is onely
ihe^irmingoutthe pmiknfafeaU*^ "vvhich whether it bee to
the purpcHC or no, I as willingly as your fclfe^ leave it to the
Reader to judge. Secondly, you fay 5 it U very itmnfidtraJe
holdneffe immee^ te wal^eeverj i^jptizedperfin a CoVinamtr , for
whom Jefw Chip ij ajnrety • vohcnoi the Scripture maizes Chrifi
ibefifrety aieljfor hss redeemed on ts. I aniwer, it is very true
that Jtffiis Chrift h the Hxitiy onely of the eleft^ fo farre
as to performe all the conditions of the Covenant in them^
but he is alio the fiircty of all vifible ProfciTors, aliqno modoy
upon their condition of performing the Covenant ; lookc
in what re/peft your {tm will acknowledge Chrift under-
takes for vifible ProfeiTof-s ^ as they are vifiblc Profeflbrs y
the fame williervemy turne, and I lliall ask no raore^

^ „ ■■ The fifth Objeftio n waSjf hat m hcmfit corned bj fuch sftaling

J,'*t^* OS this if. My anfwer was, Tbifame n>bich came to the infan$j
N b fi * of the Jew Jy n ha received thi feak in thdr infancy. You an-
comes of In - ^cr,, Krft, you allow not that cxpreffi on , That Ged feaUs
ftm-Baptifme. to every on e thit ii htftiz^d^ hefealej on^iJy id beleevers^ to whcm
hennd(rtal^es tQmaJ^good bk promije of writing hit lan> in ibeir
hearty &c. And here againc you charge me with jjmhlizing
with the At-miniimsy nbo mah^ the Covenant of grace c&mmon i$
elcB and reprobate J^ andltfttoivtrj manj liberty to frte . ihetn'
fives if ibeyphafe^andfomillifieall, Ipaffe by your ftoffe.s
of ray frivolous fuppofing of ChimeraeSj and other iiich
gocd language; you have pretty well enured me ajfo to re-
ceive the reproach of Arminianifme. As to the thing it
ftlfc^ I anfwer^ was not Circumcifion Godsfigne andfcale?
which by his owne appointment was applyed to siil the
Jews and Pfofelytes and thekchildrenj did itingagc €od
abfolucely to every one of them ta write his law ia their
heartj&c And are not the Sacraments jl^»j conditionalta^
conditional! fignes an dfcales? and did any Orthodox Di-
vine before your felf charge this to be Arminianirnjp to fay
that the Gofy6\ runs upon conditions^ I con fefl^ it U Ar-
minianifme to fay any thing is conditional! to OOD ^ this

Infam-Bapifmfro'ved from Sfrfpnrt. . 237

I never aflerted, but that the Gofpell is both pteached
and by the Sacraihentsfealed to uS' upon condition offaith,
will palle for orthodox doftrinc, when you and I are dead
and rotten.

Yoti adde ihH fi>te dot not m^ underhand th^t God required of
the Jewes Infamj iojeale intheir Infaftc} ^ I reply, but I hope
you underffandj that the Jerves Infant j nrere fealed in their
infancy^ and by this they received not ondy a priviledge to
bee accounted as belonging to Gods family, but it alfo ob-
liged them to the (cverall duties of the Covenantj as they
grew up to bee capable of performing them, I added^ Se-
condly, Godbath other ends and ttfeJ of applying the Seale of
the Covenant to ihemVfhd are in Covenant with him^ then their
frzfent gainty it it onhtmMge^ r^orpip^ arjd honour to himfelfe^
and it Moovef w in that refpeH to fulfill all righteoufneffe-^when
Cbrifi W3S baptized and eircumcifed bee vpoi as unfit for theor-
dtn^nct through his ferfe^ion^ as children through thir imper^
ftBion^ ^eingas much above them as Children are behrfthemi
your anfwer is, Bjptifme is Gods rvorfiApJPdsdobaptifme arpil"
n>crfi:fip , Chrifis Bjptifme waf of a tranfcendefit nMture^ doil"
dren are unfit for this ordinance^ noihecanfe of their imperfe&ion^
but throxgh dffiB of Gods appointment-^ had God appointed it ^
tkerewere no doubt to bee made of their fitnefe ; all this hath
been confidercd and weighed againe and againe^ and ! de-
fire notto burden the Reader nccdlefly. I added thirdly,
the benefit andfruite of it at the prefmt is greaty both to the pa*
rents andio the children^ to the parents n^ilfi God doth iherebf
honour them to have their Sildr en counted to his Churchy and un*
der his ipingy n>hilfi all the other Infants in the vporld have their
vtfibk Ranking under the 7rince, and in the klngdome ofdark^
nejfe^ arid conf^^mnily vphile others hjve no hope of their chil^
drens {pttituallweifare^ nnitllthtyhecaUedout of that conditi'-
on J tkfe needmt htve any donht of their childrens welfare if i key
die in their Infancy^ nor if they live nntill they perv fignes to tkt
contrary^ G dhavingbothreik^edthtm unto bis people ^ andgi"
vent hem all the rmanes of fahation^ rvhichan Infants age is ca^
pable of. You aniwer. Fii'ft, all this paff^ot is but di&^tteSi
Secondly, you fay if J meane the unbapti^J children of heltt*

Hh 3 v€rs

•rt Infant^B4fUfrre f roved from Script/ire.

vttJ, dotkhn^tathe klngdomtof iU'devtll^ it U a harp and
umharitalflt Jpeecb* Sir, I am glid to hearc you give that
cenfure upon your owne judgement/ it is your judgement
thatall Infants even of Beleevers as well as Pagans though
they may potentially belong to the kingdome ofChrili,
yet actually they belong to the Kingdome of the devillj but
tor my ielte, I meant onely the children of Infidells^ I doe
not thinke that beleeving Anabaptifts doe through their ig-
norance or errour put their children out of this priviledge.
You demand farther, JFbat comfort doe I give more to hiUi'
Tflngparints that have their childrenhaptizcd^thin belongs to tbem,
though their children rvere not hjftized, I aniwer^ if it bee not
through the parents fault that their children be unbaptized,
but onely by the pt-ovidence of God, they may have the
j&me comfort, yet I conceive it a greater inlargement of
comfort to enjoy the vifibk Seale, an ordinance which they
arc capable of, and which God ufes to blefle according to
his good pleafure • but I fiy when parents doe therefore
not baptize upon this principle, that their children doe not
belong to the Church of Chrift, no more then the chil-
dren of Turkes and Pagans, and con(equently are with-
out that pale, where ordinarily (alvation is onely to bee
had, it is eafie to fay that their comfort can n ot bee fo much
as others: your (elfe doc grant tjjat thii n>huh I plead fork
a comfortable condition if it could be made out ^^agQ 8 2. Where-
as I added they need not mak^ any doubt •f their ^ ch^drenS
rvelfare y if ihey die in their Infancy, &c. You aniwer,
J Jpeake like one who halds that Ejptifme doth conferre grace.
e9c epere sperato : But why fo ? when I ground it upon the
Covenant J upon their cjpacitie both <)f the Seale and the »»-
Tpard grace, and yet leave all to bee done by God, who.
hath mercy upon whom hee will have mercy; I feid not
that they may e/e^^ bee afliired of their (alvation, but that
they need not have any doubt, the lame which may
beefaid of growne vifible profefTors. I added^ h^re is alfa
rnHchpriviledge and ^e^itjit to childnn when at (befide vphatin-
x»a*'d fecret vorh^ ^od is pleafed to n^arl^ in them } tbcy being
members of the Church of Chriji ifavc their pare in the commu-

nion

Infant-Baptifmef roved from Scripture. 23^^

nion of Saints^ are rememhredat the throne of grassy eVfrji day hy
ihofi that fray for the tPelfare of the Chnrch^ and particular iy in
iffofe prayers which are made for his ^l^Jj^^g ^pon bis ordinan"
ca . here firft jeu defire t» k^ovp what I mean hy a fecret npork^
n>hich God i? pleafid to werk^ in them ; ivhether any things
exopereoperatoyor haptifmall regentratioa^ I anlWer^ 1 meant
onelythi?, thatGodis at liberty ^aiid may when hee pleaies
let his grace accompany his ordinance: of for their ieing
members of the vifible Church ^you den^ they are fn^ and 1 1 lave
proved them to bee fb. Laftly, I addcd^i/ is no [mail privi-*
ledge to have that Sealehejlowedontkemin their Infancy which
they may afterward plead nhen they are gr^wne^ ar.d come to
fulfill the condition i you anfwer, rvhen^ where andhdwBap-^
tifme jhould bee pleaded^ you doe not wellconceive^ it is not Bjp'>
tijme that will yedd a pUa of any force either in the Court df earth
or the Court of heaven ^ hut theproniife efGod and the cmjdition
of faiih in Chrift ^ And yu never knerv ar^ Saint that pie

tea-

ded his Infant Baptifme^ infuch cafes ^ as the Ap tftles pie s lies
for Rom. 8 . 3 1 ,3 2 ♦ I an^er^ as it is a plea for yifible pro-
feflbrs all their dayes, foitis a plea for Infants^when they
grow up upon the fame condition, and though the pro-
mife and faith in Chiift bee our beft ple^, yet Baptiihic
the Sealc is no nieane one, andyouiwho (ay^ thai of old the
influence of comfort from haptifme was ^erygreat^ I hope did not
inttndto limit it to the prefint time of its receiving.^ but extended
it to all calesj -which may fall within the compaffe of thofe
things for which J^aptiiine was appointed to bee a Scale,
and as long as itrcmtines a Seak^ and iVhy yoit.ihoiild
(pealui againft the pleading of Infent Baptifme, vrhien they
comctoftilfili the condition and to have the anfwcr of a
good conscience toward Godj (in which cafe the A|)oftle
iajLd BaptifBieiaYeS;us}i J cawiottcUjUakflcyoutteikajutfe
the^AnabaptiAsjthat jnfani: Baptifme- is a nuHitie^cVhirft
^you ^oe^ I^prfyyou Icjcus know it Jn.^ouraoQ:*

: ;^<claft Q^t^^Qn'^i^%^xhhpwc^dkiTflnfarHth^^ TK^^^'lf I^'
fi^%4^fp^^^ pmmillii^hh them to the eutn^ardfifftiy fams may^-
^'hyji^difiti^Hn^'f^lfi^ (fjthe Lard^ ccivcthcLorst^

-5' ob^)0:> SHpp€rySu.f>i>cr.

^AQ i^diSt'BApufmi proved from Scripting,

Stfpery^hichTft(}e Scale of the Covenant of grjc^y' Of wel! of
.the S^cramm of Baptifme ,• and the rather becaufi the Infant j
ufthe Jewes dideate the Pajfeover afnfeH afihty tver^ ciratm-
cifedt Myanfwer wai to this effeft, Infarai intharinfant^
aga are capable of the grace of Baptifme^ that wf ■^refure of nat
furethat they are capiile of the grace figmd and feakd in the
Lords Supper^ tve^ know they may ht* mithttd into the Churchy
while they are Babcs^ not that they receive nouri figment art d aug-
mentation. And I further addc, there was exprelle order
that Infants (hould bee admitted to the initiall figne, not
that they (hoiild bee admitted to the other. To this you
anlwer^ l[his Argnment is god^d homines j:^jii?z/l titm rt>h0,
argue thai to whom the Covenant helvrigSy to thtm the Stale he
longs ^ and you fay J thia argumem is confirmed by the praCtife
and QpinioH of the ancients^ who gave the Lords Supper to /»-
fonts for doo. yeers as well as baptijme, I reply, my Argu-
ment runs thus j To whom bdofigs the Covenant ^to them belongs
tU initiall Seak of the Covenant^ not €2 e J' Scale of the Co-
venant, and the ugh the L.ords ftpper bee a Seale of the
Covenant, and iiiceeed the Paflcover as a Sealcof that
Covenant, yet neither -the Palleover, nor the Lords Sup*
pGT were appointed to bee initiall Seklesj'and though* pap-
tifmc, w^ch is the iriifiiill Seafe;, ; %ve$ toCohfif me tlie reft
of the benefits of the Covenant^ as the-baptLzed grow ca-
pable of them,or are made partakers of them, yet the prime
and maiue uft of it is to bee a Seak of-lnkiaJtion and re-
ception into Go vena lit. As tor w hat yo^ ^Ad^oiihe lam-
ents giving th^ hoards Supper to infantipif'^d-jitresy f have
bcfoi'eanftvered'toitj, thaltiltcan^R^b^'^ -proved to bee fo
general! a pra^bife as the baptizing cf Infants was among
thcm^nor was it pleaded by'any liich Arguments, as they
pLeadedi For Infant Baptiimef \ I ndeid l\\ tfo' AH^iian Chtltr
chcs atbout "C^^^rirfwa and A^ik^hiihx\iv^i\\\tlj6)r^i-^^
per wasghrento infatit«y but \ tXn find^ tfo fuch-gehtrifl
pra^ife of it as you would inlinuate. Howbcit,! 4m gl^d
diatupon this occafion ydui ad5noWledge',--tfeit/«f r^e pr^

i.:ca : :-)vlr' knott not how this ^i^illagr^o Wkh that which 76^ haveTd
fisici ,i^i^H?> " confident!/

fidently aflerted before, that it was hardly knowne in the
Church for the firii 300. yeers. Whereas I added, that
though hpiifme and the Lordi Supper are both of tkm Seales of
the nea^ Covenant^ yet it is with jomt difference 5 the firfi if for
hWih and entrance^ the other h for food and growth 5 you an-
fwer, thii is a paradox to yox, keaiife if I ntak^ the entrsnce at
tbiremiffiun of finnes^jftfiification^^e. the Lords Supper n^hich
ftdks Chrifts diatby fealtJ the entrance into the Covenant^ and
Biptijmefeslfs as rvell the pur dm ef other fnnes as of e/riginall
[inne-f and therefore this difference which I pHt of the one heing
a Seak fir entrance^ the other for grarvth^is a difference n>hicb the
Scripture mike J not. I reply, if this bee a paradox, your
icife hare yery often owned this paradox, in calling both
Ciraimciion and Baptiime the Seales of our admil]ion,and
that by Baptif me wee are exhihitad to bee members of Chrifi
and his Church : which you yet never faid the Sacrament of
the Lords Supper was appointed to bee. And as for what
you now adde that the Lords Supper faling the death of Ckrifi
doth therefore feak our entrance h I anfwer, it folJowes not,
itfcales indeed the whole Covenant in its due place and
or-der, as our food is a witneflTe that wee are alive, and 16
ameanes to preferve our life, but yet itmuft bee fuppofed
that wee are firft made alive before wee are capable of the
benelkof ourfood. Andwhereasyou jerke at that phrafe
of the Lords Supper fcaling the growth and augment ation of
the C9^e».j;zf, asan unfitexprefTion; truely, I thought every
child would have uwderftoodjthat Ly nouriftinient and aug-
mentation I meant nothing but the nouriftiment and
growth of thofe graces of the Covenant, which the Coyc- ,
nant promifeth, and all are tied to feek after. As to.di^t
of the JitPes Infants eating the Faffeovi^'^ I anfwtred, there u
no fuch thing mentionedin the booke ef (hd : It is ftid indeed
that the fever all families iv^e to eate the Lamhe^ and if the J aml^
ly mere too little to eate a Lambe^ fevtraB families ppere tojojne
together y anM^Hphen thei^ childrtM fhuB as^e them the med^
nin^ (^ it^ thtf 7i>ereto inftru^tbem abmt it^ but not a word
of infitHtion appnnting tkm to eate h^er any exantpk witmjpi^
tbMib>gfdUeateit: You zxiSwGCiMAei'nuUeemri^^pwmd

li t^m

^^^ Infant-Baftifme frovedfrom Scripture,

ihreeUrAesayecri^ appe^re Ufore thi Lord, ofie of which ws^
the Fajfcf^very af^<d^ that time thtre tip of no other food tolfeeeateVy
hat unleavened hviad and the Pafcall Supper 'y and you ^bferve
§ut of hmiv,'OYi\K^hat every child that could hold his father by
the hand^ Md amid goe up from Jerufakm gates to the mount aim
,0f ihe^ Tpnpky hii father rvdt hound to Carry him up^ t$ the end
hee might catechife him in the Commandtments^ and thg nho
tptnt uprvtre hound io keepe the feafi. I anlwer^ were the Jewes
boun i to Cuviy all their Babes up with i hem to f-rufalem ,
oranyol^them, before they had underftanding in thofe
rites, and. myfierics? and was there no food among them
al! that time, but the Sacramentall food? were the imcleane
and aiicircumciied in their families to faft all that time ?
produce any Sciipture that witnefifeth thefe ; you indeed
A^uot^ two or three broken teftimonies ouc of the Rahhlns^
who lived fonie hundred yeers after Chrift^ but not one
text of Scripture^ and yet even your 'B.ahhins fay no more
tl\en I am willing to grants that when they could undcr-
ft^iH.the fcrvice, they might partake of it; nor doth the
Gofpellprohibitfruch young ones to partake of the Lords
Supper, whoare ableto diicernc the Lords body. lob-
iervs?,airo ,that w^hen a teftimony out of a Jewi(h Rabbi
feemes to make any thing on your iide, you draw more
cpni^dent concljtijjons-from it, and fetch con (equcnces fur-
ther-then you will allow mee to do€ out of the holy

SeU, J* {^' The.' application) r;f)f.pi57 Sermon you paiTeover^ as
Of rhe compa- ^q^ l^lng argi^rmcnliai^ve i ©fiely in.the firlt ufe you ag^ine

lierolnfanrs ''l?%^h' M'^'^^^Jf''^^^ Snd'lhefrincipkt if the Anahiip:iftfy
and the prin- mpt{iti?^^ihechfidven:^.hileekiefj tftUt nf ibe Covenant oj gYac?^
ciplesofAna- a^i^t]3s^^ou.aggj;^xatet946h€Utiiiort^ cailin««it'i^y^^''':ar^-

yjheir^^zntipl^^ .^Ct^jl^^H^alemerj tbildxat^ W' mucb^^t of
^^^""vmamQ^^griid^a^^js^^^ tb^^Mdan if Tttrl^^-dvd fa-

gam

gms\ and this I am ftir^itheyidoe, an^y^ur {tl^t Joyne
with them, who ackno\yledjE»;e no more promiie for the
children of beleevers, then for the children of Tiirkcs,and
kave them to have their a<^u.tll ftandingin the viiible king-
dome of the Devill. This I faidin a Ijiirituail lenfe was
more heavy to the bowclls of Chrii'cian par€p;ts^ then to (ee <
their Infants llaine before their face, while iii the mcane
time they mi^htlooke upon their Infan^jodying, to bee
within thepale of the Church jWhere falvationis oixiinarily
to bee found ; this I Icive the Pveader to judge of V» here-^
as you adde that ihisfdUtiWQsntit upen the ddCitine of Ahtip£^
do^jptilme that Injants are tbuf exclndad^ and that i/ to ^^ with-
in the Coven jf2t (fgrace^ lee rightly expounded^ yen exclffde
them from the Covenant of grace no more then I doe 5 of the truth
of this, without any needlefle repetition, I leave the Rea-
der to judge by ta hat hath been diiputed betwixt you and
mee 5 if they find this alTertion of yours to bee true^ I give
them leave to charge mee with the ^ame raflmejpy falfe accn-
fations^ zndp^jjionjy which here you powre upon mee- if
not^I amfurc they wiillayitall at yourdore. - .

I now come to your Epilogue, wherein you intimate 3 r. « g
firfl, that you prcfimie you ha.vefaid fo much again^ my Ser- ^^ ♦ * ^ ,
mon^ that jon hope J fee caufe to confider more exaaly of thi4 y^^-^Iq^^^.^
^uftnejfetbefj I bad d< me before^ that 1 am nei 710 w fo cofifidcm
M livn^ that ihiiUGoeis truth : I anftver, as in the prefence
of the fame great God to whom you and I both muft give
an accounts I havefcdeufly weighed what you have writ-
ten, or any other who have come to my hands, with a
full resolution not to (liut my eyes againft what light hee
would cauie to fliinc upOTi mee, an d upon my moft diligent
ftudy, accompanied with myweake, yet fincereand earnefl
prayers, I am more confirmed in it, and the more I have
ituaicd, the clearer it appearcs unto mee» Secondly^ you
fay you have endeavored to examine every thing of rveight
delivtredinmy Sermon^ and :r>hat you could remember of Mr,
Thomas Goodwins, and rphat Mr. Blakcj or any other have
nritkn about this thing • and I likcwife have fcriouHy

li 2 weighed

a44 Infam-Btifti^prpvedfrm Smpture*

weighed and not paft over arty thing of weight in this
your Bxamcn. Tbirdly^you fayj-e* chofi cat my Sermon^ hir
caiifi lam in frint filled the Antifignima^ the Ev^figne^ hearer ;
a title which I neither deicrvc nor defire. Fourthly^ you
motion that all tpee who have appeared in puhlicjfue in this eanfe
rf'Guld p}7ie aur fircngih t(^geiher in a reply to this yottr Examen
thai yen might ^(i the jvholf fnngth imbattel'd. that you might
mi k put to the reading cf cverj Tamphkt, Truely Sir, this
finells a Jitde too rankly^ thus confidently to challenge all
men, not contented \\ ith Goliab to fay, Givi mee a man^
that I might fgbt rrith him^ but to defic a whole h^ft^ argues
a little too much feiic- con fide nee. But for your fatisfa^ti-
on, here is my booke, yoa may try your llrength againft
it, and though I find my impaired health and multitude
of imploj/nentsis like to bee an apology, for mee, from
drawing this faw any longer^ nor indeed is h needfull,
there being lio end of writing, all knowing that there is
nocokuroverfie of fmh, wherein learned and prejudiced
men have not been able to write book« after booke again fl
the truth, elpecially wi^en they choofe fiich a way of di-
iputingasyou have chofen ', However^ I feare not but it
willindnre your utternooft cppofition, and if my booke a-
lone bee looked upon, ^s too poore a buf nefle, you iee
. there are already two or three other bookes extant already,
againft ycu, and I am informed two peeces at leaft come
Cut of "NtW'EngUndu^ow the fame fnb-e^t, your ielfe be-
ing therein concerned (lor even thither have lome ient your
writings, and fufficiently in them, fhewed your /corne of
Mr. Th^m^ Goodmn^ Mr. Vjms^ and my felfe, as our friends
doe from thence write untD us} you may take us all toge-
dicr, and then wee may goe for a pretty Army^ and when
yen have done all you can, 1 doubt net but fome will
be found who will have leafure as well as ability to cope
with you ; I oneJy de(ire you in your next not to goe
on in this way of making wrangling exceptions, and /etk-
ing to furre and blind what is written by your An-.
tagoniit, but by folidand cleareaiTumcnts, ice if you Cvin
refute that which is alTated, and let jiour Reader al/b

know

Infam^Bitpttfme proved, from Scripture. 245

know as well what you would have^ as what you would
not have, and open your judgement to the fullin this con-
trovedie , and (hew whether you take Infant^baptifni to be
vilid^ov a nullity jzn<\ if you think it not a nullity^fhew your
grounds for it, why all this fhould be true, which you have
t hus far contended for^ That l.^f^nts are no more to h accow. *
ttd bilngwgto the Chttrch afCbrifl thm Pagans^ and yet their
baptifrne fliould be valid^ whether if any man (hould bap-
t ize a Turk or a lew when he ihould be aficep^or by violence
or any wayes againfl his own confent, this baptiime were
notanullity^andlknow not what difference you make
between the one and the other,

1 f on the other fidf", you doe thinke it a nullity^ then ma-
nifeft how any at all can now be baptized^ unlefle you will
thinke that they may baptize others who are unbaptized
themfelves 5 for my own part, I ferioufly profeflc^thatfiip-
poling Infant-bapti me a nullit)'-, I cannot nnderftand how
any in the world fhould this day be lawfully baptized, un-
lefle it can be made ^ood that a perfbn unbaptized himfelfe
may be a lawfull rvlinitter of baptifme to others : for cer-
tainly untill the Anabaptifts aro^e in Germany^ all the bap-
tized world were baptized vvhlle they were Infants- and
confecjnently thefirft Auabaptift was baptized by an iin=
baptiz-d pcrioup and fo in concrufion We muil all turn See-
ker.sand be cortent without baptifine^till ChriH give Tome
extraordinary Commillion from Heaven unt ) fome men
toh^ Apoitles in this bnrmefTe.

Fift[jly,you expreire ih,^ firaightsym are Hk^ to be brought jn-
ic by ihe hjje ofjnurJmjU fiipend, as a co!i.lcquent of this your
Opinion. Sir, I am perfwaded this is made up a-
bundantly in that Honourable Society where nov/you ex-
ercife your Miniileryj and \ belecch tiie Lord fo to informe
you in his truth in this particular, and to guide your Spi-
rir^that you may no longer be a tumbling' block to others,
nor others prove frunibling-blocks to you, that thofe good
parti which God hath beft owed upon you, may for the
time to come be employed in the moll: ferviceable way,that
both your worke and wages may bee with and from the
Lord. I i 3 Sixthly :j

%^6 Iftfant'Baptifmc proved from Scripture.

Sixthly and l^Mj^you dedareymr vpillingmfey either to have
conjerence with mey to confult about a ivay of a brotherly debating
of thUpottit^or to receive other anjr^er Tvhhin the /pace of a month.
What part betwixtyour Telfe andnie in Conferenccj I have
given the Reader an account of in the beginning of my
Booke 5 and in truths I verily thought you would quietly
have keptyour Opinion as private to your felf, which v/as
the true rcafon why I medled with your Book no foonerras
icon as it was publiflied^ I took nw (kM bound in confcieiice
to take it into Examination^ and give this publike account
of it; fince which time God hath been pleaied to yilitmee
ivith fickneffe and inlirmity of body ^ fo that for a moneth
or fix weeks I could very little attend upon this taskjand ma-
ny other employments have compelled me to go through it^
horisfuccifiviSi Kot being able to atteiic] it many whole days
without much interruption. Such as it is you now have it
with you^and I make bold to fay again^l am verily perfwa-
dQd\t is Gods truth which I maintain againft youjand I fear
n ot my account of this Work in the great day ; iave onely
1 muft ever acknowledge and bewaile thoie frailties and in-
tirmities which cleave to whate^jer I put my hand unto.

A

247

A Brief

EXAMINATION

O F

M'-TOMBES his Exercitation
about INFANT-BAPTISM.

;Onr Exercitation might very well have been
fpared in this placcj for any great advantage
it is like to bring to your caufe^but f am very
glad it is extant 5 becaufe all Learned men
will by it plainly difcern how mean and poor
your Arguments are ^ when you come pofl-
tively to aflert, they will now finde that true which 1 faid
in the beginning, that your faculty is farre better in darke-
ning, Gurringj and plundering the Arguments of your Ad-
verfary, then in making good your owne. You have here
impanelled a whole Jury, and would fainc perfwade a vcr-
didi of twelve men to rtand upon record on your fide , as
haying found Infant -Baptifme guilty of the crimes which
you have laid, to its charge: I (liall very briefly exa^iihc
what everyone of them have faid^and only ran them over,
partlyjbccaufe thet'e are lately extanr two learned Treatifes
againft it, written by Doftor Homes^ and Mafter Geree , the
firft of them was publiflied when my Book was almoft half
Printed, the other lince , but chiefly becaule almoft every
fentence in this your Exercitation which hath any ftrengtft
IB by your felfe brought into your oth^r Treatife , which

you.

2A$ A brief Bxamimtien of Mr. Tombcs hk

you call the Examett of my Sermon ^ and there is already
tltlly anrwered "

Of your twelve Arguments, the firft is not properly to be
calledan ArgHmmt agahfi Infint-Baptifme^ but is rather an
« anftv£r to Overall Arguments pretendcd'to bee brought for
Infant-Baptifme 5 and upon this you beftowatlealltvvo
third parts of your Exercication. twice as much Inkeand
Paper upon the foreman of the Jury^ ?^ you doe upon the
other eleven.

Vnder the head of this firft A rgumentj you have broughfi.
in no leffethen fourteen Arguments (as you call thcm)tor
thelavvfulnefle of Infiuit-Baptirmcj and then you under-
take 'to anfwer them 5 your ielflay truly of many of t hem^
ihijmake a number vpithout firZ'gih i, and therefore as you
*have madeaconqucli of them , doe with your pdfbners
what you pleaie.for J count them not worth t'at redeeming^
ondy this I fay, we h ave ih. or feven of you r t w( 1 /e^ which 1
think 2t)l the world, and your iklk alio, will grant to be tdr
ken Prifoners by U5:> if you pleafe we will exchange them for
the other 3 and then in the exchange we (hall lole nothing,
being affiired you: s are as weake and limple as it is poffibie
for thole to be which you have taken; and for the reft of
the arguments brought for Pacdo-Baptiime, you have pro-
'; pounded them for, your owne advantage >, io fet them
downe as to make them beil capable of the fpecions aniwers
you bring unto themj butlliicenot that an enemy (hould
have the ordering of riie Forces which hee nieanes to tight
againft^you muft give as leave to choofeour own weapons^
and Marfhall our ow^n Forces, and then you may try your
skillandvalour againlt them, Do6^or Homes hath made
his Annotations upon all the arguments which- you have
produced according to your owne method. Mr. Gcre^ hath
chofen out onely thole arguments which carry moft evi-
dence, and nottroubled himfelfe to examine every thingjfor
my parta I humbly conceive that Infant; b'aptifme is not to
be fetched from any /?«£ of theie grounds^?r^^ ^ but is built
upon the identity of the Cjnenant^ Infants right to iheCovenafiS^
4mdtht initiaUfeale-, and conftqucntly thoiigh one Text may

bee

be a ftifficicnt we/:ir«»i or Argument to prove (bme one or
twoof thcni) yet to make the evidence full , thefe grotnds
njutt not be leparated onc^rom another, but nece/lkry re-
coil r/e nmit be had to them all h and if alJy our Arguments
doe overthrow any one of themj cither the Covenants be-
ing the fame in fubftance,or infants right tothe Covenant,
or the Lords appointing an initiall lealc to bee adminifrred
to all who are reputed belonging to the Covenant , I Ihali
readily yeeld the caufc, as I have often told you. All the ^r^.. r.
trouble 1 ihal put the Reader to,about this your firit Argu- Anjw.
ment or rather your anfwer to Arguments, I-hal be to point
himt'ofuch places in my book^ where you have already
preOtheiamethmgs^and Ihavegivcnan anfwer to them,

Thefirit Argument from Gr«. 17. hath hetnt examined.
Part 3. Seft. 1^2. and elhvhere.

The fecond are^ument taken from Baptiftn &cceeding in-
to the room ot' C^ircumcifionjand Colo^. 2. 1 13 1 ajSccis exa-
mined Part 3. Sea. 9,

The third arc^umcnt from the pnviledges ofbeleevers un-
der the New TefVament^ is examined. Part 3 . Seft. i f . 7 .

The fourth argument from A^s 2, 38. is fully examined,
Part^SeS'.^.

The fifth argttmtnt from i Cor, j. 14, is examined, Part

5. Sea. 8.

The fixth argument from iT/jr^io.14, Mattk. 19 8:c

which aho you pat into feverall fhapes, is examined^ Part 3 .

Scft. 15.

The fcventh argument from AU^i6, and leverall o-
ther places which pi^ake of baptizing of ho ifholds, is exi-
minedPartS.Seft. 14- Aad in theie feverall p'lces you
hayo prcflTed whatever is of any Teeming weig?u i.i this your
Exi:Jt:it3tion, and added many other things which the rea-
der [hall fittdc to bee examined ia the^lacfS vvhich I have
poLntoito , befides in feverall other pUces of my Booke,
-where you have again and again repeated many of the fame

thi'nt»s.

Th^ other (even arguments (as you call them.) I looke

not Mpon as argu nents , and therefore will not meddle

wkii tucrn^ ibmc o* tlic Scriptures mentioned in them, as,

)L k ^xod.

0O A Mifi iifminAiHn d/^r. Tpmbes his

Mxod* 20, ^. I Fet, 2. 9. &c, fo farrc as they have any ufe m
%hU controverfie, are alfo eoniidered of here, and there ia
my Book, as the Reader may obfcrve.

Arg. 2, Your fecond Argument againft Infant Baptifme is fetcht

from Mai, a8. 19, That which agrees n^t with the Lords injii-
iuiienof Bdptifme^ that u defervtdlj doubtful!'^ But the rite
of Infant^haptifme agrees not xviththe Lords irijiimtien of BaJ^^

Anfw» ^^f^^ ^^l°* This argument hath received its full examinati-
on. Part 3. Seft. 15 . and Part 4. Seft. i. whither I refer the
Reader, as not willing to trouble hiai with needlefTe repe-
tition of the fame things. ^ 1 ., 77 a

^ Your third Argument is Xakenfrpm the practice of the

^' ^* Apoftles, and J»htt the Baptift, and runs thus, Ihat tenet and
■pra^ice nhich ieing put^ Baf^tifm cawwt be adminifred as John
iapiU and the Apojiks didadmini^er it^ agrees nM vpiththepra-
Qiceof John 'B.sftifi and the Apoftlesi, But the tenet and pra^ice
ef- Infant'Baptifmebeingpufy^jptifmff cannot bee ^dminiSred,
as Jo, Baptift^ and the Apojiks adminiUndit • ^rgo &c. This
you goe about to prove, becaufe John and the Apnfikj- bapti-
zed none bn^fueh oi confuted finnes^ they required jhew^cj of faith
and rep9ntanee in all whom thej.haptized, .

A»f^* This Argument relates wholly to matter of faft,whereiu

you put your felfe to prove a negative; and therefore the ar-
gument can prove nothing/unlefle you can produce fome
one place at leaft otit of the Scripture wherein it is faid no
I.nfant wasbapti2ed by them,,or no other then fuch as^ you
have mentioned; but what you have here faid about it is
fully confidcrcd. Part 5, Sc^» 1 3, efpecially Part4. Se^. I.
. Thefe three Arguments, which alone dcferve to bee cal-
led (if yet the fir ft may be fo called} arc fully examined in
the places above- mentioned; the reft,,of^ your arguments
are fo wholly inconfequent^that I wohdei|yQu(houl4 think
them worthy or fit to face an Affembly of Difi^cs^ ?and c»-
peft that they (hould joy ne their llrength together tx> frame
an anfwer to themjw^hen as I verily thjinkethey may all bee
routed by the running pen of an ordinary CJei-ke in ai feiy
hOures. '■■;..■ •;:;-! -J -■■; . V "

Arg* 4< Your fourth is taken from the next jagf n ^ei? the Apor

files, and ftaiids thus in y ouc boc^, BecoHfo.. Infani-^hptifiiu

^af0o$

eaTimthefrovidthst it wai inf§rceor ufiinth fiext aft after ^ht
Apofflif'j EvgOj the tenet and pra&ice of it U douhtfuU. The nta^
pr (you fay) is manife fi of itjelfe-^ for the miner ym alltdge Vi •
vcSj and Strabo; and (fay you, it ii confirmed hy exariiimng of
places brough to that prerpofe^ &.hy comim^ingquefiions to the fat'
tie J baptized in ages JifSomng^ and other tokens from Councetls^
and Scciefiafiieall writers,

I anlwcr, Firft, to your Major^ which you fay is mani- Jnjw^
feft of its felfe, I judge to bee moft falfe , and a moft dange-
rous pofition : is every tenet and prad^ice doubtfuU^jwhich
cannot be proved by historical] evidence co have been recei-
ved and prifticed in that afc, whereof we havefo few Re-
cords? the procclHon of the holy Ghoft, the propagation
of origiiralllinne, and many other Tenets, I bcleeveyoU
will neither find mentioned in that age nor the next , How
would you have laughed at ftich a conclulion let downe by
another? And iecondly^for your Minor^ I anfwer i .There
werenoCouncells at allaflembledinthatagencxtto the'
ApollleSf And 2. as for Ecclefiafticall Writers, I wifli
you would name them ; Ibeleeve you will find very few
Writers of credit in that age, whofc legitimate workcs are
tranfmittcd to pofterit^'. Thirdly, how do P'ives and Stra'
bs know what was done in the ages next the Apoftles,when
the eldeft of them Jived almoft 8co years after that age > the
authoiity and skill of theft two men hath been fufficiently
fpoken to. Part i. Se£\:. 2. Fourthly, I wonder how the
queiiions propounded in ages following to the baptized »
doe prove that Infant-Baptifme was not in ufe in the ag^
next after the Apoftles.

Your fifth argument runs thus , That which in fucceeding Arg. %
agesinrvhichitrrafintifey n^as in force frfi as a Tradition mf ^

written. Stcondly^ out of imitation of J etwifheircumeijJon.Tkird'^
ly^ ti^ithnnt univerfaU pra&ice. Fourthly^ together with the error cf
giving Infants the Lords_ S upper ^and with many other b^mane ih"
ventionj under the nameof ApiJtolieaHTraditions^that is defer^
'9edly doji^fitll . Btttfetchrvatlnfam'BsptifiheinthoJeage^^Er" ^ v- ^
go, &c. I anfwer, firff^ by denying your Major, the dbfer- ^^*
vation of the tbtds day hath beene by fome accounted a,
TraditioiHOthers'tiavefaidit is TewKhtoteep any Sabbath

at aH > bccaufe Sabbath dayes were a (hadow of things to
comcjbut the body is Chrift^what will you thence conclude
again-ft our Chriftian Sabbath? And for what you fay a-
bouttheprafticeof it that it was notuniverfali, Idefirc
you to remember^ that argumentumdH^um anm faCto admn
jus efi abftirdiffirnHm-^ may wee plead thus, fuch andfuch
a thing was not generally obicrved. Ergo it was not a duty?
the boycs in the Schooles would ftamp and hide at fuch an
. ihem. 9i 17, inference -, from the dayes of lojhua^ to the dayes of iVeAg-
mtahi, the children of lirael had not kept the ieaft of Ta-
bernacles in Boodis or Tents 5 which was about a thoufand
yeares; was it therefore not their duty to have done it>
Dr* Ht^lin in his liiiloryof the Sabbath, urgeth this very
argument agaiaft the Lords day , in fuch and juch Father j
dajJ mitny did mtohferve the Lords djiy^ntanj did tipple a7id dance
upon the Lords daj-^trgo the Lords day was not generally obferved^
and if it were not generally obferved'm ihoje dajs^fsgo n>e art not
hound to cthfirve i/.This kind of arguing is almoft as wilde as
that which the Schools Cajl 5 a hacub ad angultt^n , my ftaffe
ftan Jsin the corner, Eg it will raid to morrow morning.
Y our laft Exception under this fourth argument is yet
more ftrange^T/^ere wert many other things n>ent under the name
ofTraditionSy which were meer humane ittventims ^Evs^o Infant*
haptifm^which went under the name of a Tradition is alfo a
humimc invention. Shall I (hew the naturall face of this
argument in a glafic ; fiich and fuch men who went under
ihe name of honed men were knaves 5 £^1;^ all that goe
lioder th^ name of honeft men are knaves. It is true, many
things went in thoic dayes under the name of Traditions,
which were but humane inventions 3 and it is as true that
% many points of faith^ and other divine inftitutions went in

the fame ages under the name of Traditions, as I have made
apparent. Part i, Seft 2. Yqu fee what a poorc argument
this would prove although your minor vJtrt trus , though
the things were as you fet them downe 5 but I have abnn-
dafidy proved the contrary : I have (hewed the Ancients rc^
ccivedita$aP^tfi««f Iw'/^v^^^^andiapon^fi^ arguments as
wedoe,though (om«5 of tlyerw preil fomc corrupt grounds
which wc rejtft: andas for %iit^uimm3Xl^^!^^:^K^6m f^i

it

k both in the Greek and Latin Chwches I have abundantly

cleared k from all Obie8:ions you make againft it: and you

out of i^ill your reading have not been able topredncg one of$he

unciem J ^who either heieiltunl4TpfHllfOr denyed that it was in ufe

from the Jpoflles dayes.One ortwo indeed you bringwboad-

vifed the deferring Infant-Baptifm, as they did alio the bap-

tifme of grown men j and fome examples you, produce

of thechildrenof Chrlftiansnot baptized (as you think)ii3

their Infancy; to all which I have fooken at large, Pari\. •

/f^.2.And as forwhatyoualledgeot their giving the Lords

Supper unto Unfants^I havedenyed^ and fhall doe ftili, till

you bring fome evidence for it, that there was any fuch uni-

verfall praftife.indeed in the African ChurcUcs that errour

did obtain in the days of Cyprian and dafiin^ but I finde no

fuchfgenerallpraftice of it; however the Argument follows

not^ That it was their error to g ive hifantsths Lords Supper-^Er*

go it rvQ/i ibeir error to baptizs Infants ,.

Your fixth Argument runs thus * that a-hicb hath occafiemd Arg, 6,
mjiny humane in-ventionr ] partly hy which hifani-Baptifme it
fife may bee tmderproft , partly the dtfeB in the p >licy of the
Church fupplyed ; that it defrmdly douhtfuU . Bat the matter if
fg in thebufirtiffi of Infaf^t Baptifme: and here you bring iii
rvitmffes in B^ptijmiy Epifiopall confirmation^ the reformed uni'
on^jCXjmiKa0io?3y cO/ijcffion^hefore receiving the Lords Sufptr^ .
Church' fovenam h^ore the admijfton of ChHrcb^members into
Chifrcb' fell one fhip^&c,

I anfwer briefly, if by occafionedyou mean« that Infant- jinfn^,
Baptiftnc hath exnaturkrei given occaCon tothcfc thiiigs,
I deny your minor, Infant-Baptifme is no more anocca>
fion of thefe thin^j-sin the Chriftian Church, then circutn-
dfing of Infants was an occafion of the like in the Jewifh {

Chu.xh; Inlam-Baptifme may very well (land, and doth
very well Hand in many reformed Churches without foch
witnedes, without cmfirmjtion^or any ffther txatmnatidnycm-^
fafipn^&c, before the lords Supper, or other Church-di-
(cipline>then iuch as might bee in uric to men though they *
were not b:pti2ed in their Infancy : but if by eccafimed y^a -
mcane nxjt ncc fio daijy but occafi& ttmtre arrtpt^, that the
corropc mlnuot nian hath thenoc tooke occafion for other

K k 3 errors

3 54 ^ brkftiiCAmmtm 9ftir. Tombes his

eri'oi^ and iwiftakes 5 if you nieattei ikit which bath '^bus oc^
c0fi(^td many hiim<tfie inmntidns U itmhtfuU^ then I deny your
major : there is fcarfe any common place in the body of Di-
Virtitybnt hath occafioned humane inventions, the Lords
Supper hath occafi6ned kneeling at the Sacrament, and that
hath occafioned ftifpenfionj excommunication, reparati-
on* what will you thence conclude againit the Lords
Supper ? ^YgB^ the Lords Supper is a humane inrenti 011 ?
^^; - 3 I ourieventh, eighth, and ninth Arguments are but fo

^Q^ many branches or rather fo many repetitions of your iixth
Argument, poilibly you have thus divided them that you
Anfpo might make up a whole Jury. And the felfe lame anlwer

fcrves them as was given to the other j I will conclude as
flrongly againft you, out of your owne prcmifles thus*
Antipsedobaptiftne hath occafioned many crrours, many
abufcs and faults in difcipline, divine worfliip, and con-?
verfation of men, together with many unnecelTary dis-
putes, foftering contention onely : ^ge , Autipxdobap-
tifineis what you pleale to all Infant-baptifme : I leave
out that pafTage onely in the major of your ninth Argu-
ment, viz. vphich cannot bee determined by any c€rtaine rf*ie^
bccaufc therein you doe very heartily beg the qucftion.
jifaAOn Your tenth argument is framed thiiSj 7 hat in the midft

of the darl^nejjeof Psperyy the fame men nlnj oppofed invocation
of Saints^ Frajer far the dead ^ adoration of the crojje^ and (uch
lil^eyoppofed alfi the baptizing of Infant J y and here you bring
in Bernard his 66, Sermon upon the Canticks^ and his 140.
Epifilt againfi-Hinry the Heretick (as you call him) and
Cluniacenfij agoing Peter de Bt^u and Henry 5 alfo a paflage
ontof OfioHd^j^ccujingibe Albinge7ifef as c^nfenting miih the
^Anfv0^ -^nabaptifli. To which I anfwer, firil, I deny theconie-
quchce, becauft they oppofcd invocation of Saints, prayer
fortfje dcad^Scc. and al^ <)ppo(€d I n f ant*-BJaptilmc ; Ergo^
thelaft isanerrour as well as the fir ft: for the fame men
hare oppofed Popery and the Sabbath, the lame men have
denyed Prelacy and the blelTed Trinitie : Is it not poiTible
forthefimeman to oppofe a multitude of curled errors,
arid yet to oppofe fomc one blefled tnith? Secondly, I al-
io deny your minor; they who thus opDoled inyocation -

of

©f Sglints, &c did mot oppoft baptiffne of Infants : Be r engar iuf ^

the PValdtnfis^ Albingenfes^ Wickhtites^ Huffius ^ and ' Others are
indeed flandered by forae of their adversaries, as if they denycd
Infant-baptift^c, but arc cleared out of their owne cenfeflions ; as
I have made abundantly nianifed^Part a. Se<^. 2. What under
the head of this tenth Argument yoamention owt oil ertuUian^zxid
Grezprj N azlanzm hath beene fully eonfidcred of. Part i. Sect. 2,

Your eleventh Argument runs thus 5 The ajferters of Infant-bap- Jrg, 1 1
.tifme. little agree amongthemfdves upon vphat founddtion to build Infant'*
bspt'fme : fonie from ttniverfalitie of divifie grace^, fome from r.e-
ajjitie of Baptiftne to Jalvation^fomcfrom ib^promi/e ofthefureties^
fomefromthc faith eft he Infant j^^ {6m^ kom the faith of the next
■parents, ErgOy What? what conclu^on can you make from this : Anffy*
The Antipxdobaptifrs rejcft the Bapti/nie of Infants upon feverall
grounds :ibme becaufe Infants have nofinne, ^bme becaufe they
have no more to doe with the Covenant ofgrace^ then theinfants
ofTurkes; fomebecanfe Infants are not capable of grace^fome
becaufc they are unbcleevers, fomc becau/e we cannot know whe-
ther they have grace or no, will you therefore fay Antipasdo bap-
ti Tme is to bee rejeded ? So for the Lords day ^fonie pleade it upon
one ground:>others rejei^ that ground, and plead it upon another,
have therefore none of them hit upon a right ground ? the like
may bee faid of many other points both of faith and praQ:i(e
in Chriftianitie, the utmoft that can bee collc(^ed from mens
different grounds in pleading for fuch or (iich a truth is, that
God hath not left that truth fo cleare as polfible he hath done
others wherein there is agre;iter conlent.'buttocoITeft that there-
foi e the opinion is to be reje£led,is a ftrange confequence.J add far-
ther that almoii all, both ancient and moderne,doe agree in ths
argument from Circumciiion to Baptiirne, which necef^arilylm'^
plies our Covenant to be the fame with theirs,cur Jnfanta right'to it*
be the l^ame with theirs, and our Sacnarattit of Baptifnie to be the
lame with theirs of CircuniGiiion as to the uSe of an initial] Scale*

Your twelfth and kit Argument which brings up your reere, ^^- j2i
which you call a weighty reafbn,runsthu8:£^c^«/e Infant-Baptifme
feemesto iak^ an? ay one ^ perhaps the primary end of BaptiOne^ 7)?«. that
itfhofildhee ajigne that the baptized fhevp bimfelfe a Viicp/e^ and conftfje
the faith in rvhich hee hath b^mi^jf/u^ed^ and this you prove from
hbnthiBa^tifiandQtkr paffnga iii fk Ntw lefiament^ jvhichpnt'

ajg A briefe 'exmiyfati$3i of Mr. Tombes^/v (^c.

Ajjh, :nt:de.TQ^\hlc\\ I aniwer : This Argument how weightie focver >
bee,is bnc a bi^auch taken ^on^ y our fccond argument out of VZ/^f
2S.and from yoirr third argument from the pv^^iiQ of %bn A
Chrifis ApoftJes^ and is but a Cram'sc of what you hav f "
prert before, and hath received it? fuJ] arjfwerjPart 2 Seft 12'^^^
Part 4. Sea i.andladde dirther.thateven that which your felfe
here lets dowrc^givesatuUan-rwer to your own Argument. fr»r
yon lay that ^ f^cramiUt knot 6nly a vifihkfigve of an invmulrZ
orappmtedto figmfii only ^druhic hem jit, but uVih,,wiQr^ryiT t6 LniiL
b^ dutie n>bo receives the Sacrammih fi^nifies apr^,fji,-.n m.deJJdl
a, confirms a i^.w// 5 for doth It not thence neceftrily foiJow th^t
^At Infants of the Jewesmadeby theirCircumcihon a nrofell'
on as xxz\\ as received the figne of a benefit > and that therefore
the Baptizing of Infants doth not fruflrate that tn^ of initl^r Jn^
themtobeeDifdpksorProfe(rors?Andthat: which you add- of

r

/iuthors who

wnt<?

about 11^ that Infa/its as well asgrowne men were initiated

the profelTio/i of Jiidaifmebytheriteof Baptifme *^ '"""''^^^"^^
IntheMpJaceyoufhutup your Exercitation ni/^ a dlCcnurfe
about the Devillj indentwg nnth witches to renoui^ce their Bapurme
^ if feme woHidihmce argue that 'Infant'Bjptifme- is ^nod, hcc^ui ihe
DcviUri^midhavethemremHnceit: hmyozf, who it feemesknoiv the
DevilJs mind in it, fa^ tbt true reafon n^hy hee require j witches to re-
rmme their Ejptifme, is mt hecanfe th, BaptKme ii go,d in ref^
of the adrntnijiratimafit^buthtcattfeihe fahhrnemi^ned in the firme
t ^/^^p/:>7c«g..^formyownepartJani^ JittJe arquainred wiVh
the Devilispra&feinrt.and fee fo littJe i^ren^^rh of Argument
for oragainft Inlant-Baptifmcfrom the trading betwixt the DeviJJ
and the witch tfaat Ihitcnd not to n>eddie with this Argument
^tcht froni hell, 1 reft contented with thcie which I find in die
oookc of God.

FINIS.

S E RM O N

OF THE

BAPTIZING of INFANTS;

PREACHED

In the Abbey-Church at Wefiminfier^ at

the Morning Le(9:ure5 appointed by the
Honorable Houfe of COMMONS.

BT

Stephen Marjhall^ B.D. Minifter of Gods Word,

ac Finching'field in E([ex*

A c T. 2. 39.

The Promifi is unto you and tojonr Childnn^ and to all that are afarre off^
evm as many as the Lord our GodJhaU call*
Rom. II. 16.
If the roote hee hofyy fo arethe branches.
I C O R. 7. 14.
The unheleevwg husband is fan&ifyed by the mfe^ and the unbdeeving
npifiisfan&ifyedbjtbehitfbandy elfetpzreyour children unclean^ hut
now they are holy.

LONDON, ^

Printediby Richard Cotes ^ for Stephen BowteU^ and are t® be fold at ^ST

the figae of the Bible in Popes-head Alley, 1 645 . gg

mmmmmmmm

T O

The Reverend and Learnedthe

Prolocutor^ AfleiTors, the Commiffi-

oners of the Church oiScotland^znd the

reft of the Affcmbly of Divines, now

fitting in Weftminfter.

Ome fevpof ns who are of your number^
freely bejiowing our Labours in the Ab-^
bey-Church yC'very Mornings we agreed a-
mong our fellies to mBru6i our Auditors
in aUthe necejfary Truths of that Docirine^which is
according to godlineffe j One taking for hi^ SubjeSiy
the Articles of Faith , Another the Ten Comman-
dements i Another the Lords Prayer, &c. My lot
of late hath been to handle the DoBrine of the Sacra-
ments, andcomming in order to this Pointy I inde-
soured to cleere it as fully as I could in one Sermojt^
and was thereby compelled to borrow a little more
time then is ufually allotted to that Exercife.

Importunity of many Friends^ who co nee i'v edit
might gi*ve fome light to that which is now made a
great contro<z/erfy^and might through the blejpng of

3

God^

The Epiftle Dedicatory.

Gad^ hec a meanes to reclame fame deceived Sonles^
or present the decerning of others^ hath brought it
thm into Fublich^ view.

And although I h^ow myjelfthe tmrvorthyefi^and
unableji of many^ yet becapife I am ajfured that it is
Gods Tnithwhich I have F reached^ andr&hich hee
will bleffe^Iwoo the more eafily overcome by that int"
port unity J if it may contribute any thing to the help-
ing forward of the great workjtow under your hands
and may ea^eyon of any part of that Labour which
fo exceeding prejfeth you^therein IJhallrejoycey And
in the opportunity I have by Dedicating this to your
Names^ to teSfify that I am

Your unworthy Brother

and Servant in the Lotdswotk^

St EP H B N Marshall.

?f|^^^^^^^ff'^:^^ff'^«f^^lf7

SERMON

OF THE

BAPTIZING of INFANTS.

I P E T. 3. al.

The like figure wheret$m0^ even B apt! fme, doth alfo now five us,
(not the putting amy of the filth of the flejhj^ut the anfwer of
a go$d confeience towards Cod ) ty the Refurreition of^efns
Chrift.

i N this Morning Lefture J have formerly
in my courfe out of feverall Scriptures
handled the Doftrinc of the Sacraments
in Generally and then proceeded to Ipeak
of the Sacraments of the O/dTefament^^nd
therein their ;^«;»^fr 5 thtiv agreement^ and
difagreemcnt^ with thofc of the New Tefta-
mem V And now lately have begun to open the Sacraments
olthe NewTeftament.

The firft of them is now in hand •, And I have already
out of this Text, made fourc or five Sermons, concerning
the nature and ufc of the Sacrament of Baptifmc^wherein I

have

A Sermon of the BApi^ing of Infants.

have cleared unto you : Fir ft, Who was thtAHthonr and
Inftltutenr of it : Secondly, Who is to be the LMinifier of
it: Thirdly, the Effence of it^ the matter and forme of it 5
both the restcrrena, and the r esCcelell is ^ the earthly, and
the fpiricuall part: andnowFourchly, it remaines, that I
treat ot the /^i'j^^ofit, or the perfons who are to be Bap-
tized •, and they are ot two fores •, either ^rewn men^v/ho
being inftru(fled in the Dodrine of Chrift, and profefling
their Faith in hinrijand their willingnes and readines to live
according to his will, and do defire to be partakers of this
ble-lTed Sacrament-, thefevvhcther Jews or Gentiles, Male
or Fcmalcj bond or free, are to be admitted to the partici-
pation of this Ordinance ; of the Baptizing of fiich as thefe
there is no qneftion. The other fort are Infants^ of whofe
right to this Sacrament, I fliall (by Gods afliftance^ trcate
this day.

And concerning thefc^ there arc two forts of queftions :
Firft, Whether any Infants at all are to be Baptized/*
Secondly^Suppofing^fome have right to it^yet it's great-
ly difputed, whoje InidLHts maybe baptized /* viz.. Whe-
ther the Infants of £xf^w;w«;?/V^^(?perronS; of Heretifks^ot
Profane men, of meerly civillj KtghteeuSy whether Ba(lards,
whether [he Infants of H^^/Z'f^j, who are to hee brought up by
ChriftUnsi, and whether thefe may not be baptized, with
lome €Aution\\{cA^ thereby to make diftin(5tion betwixt the
pure and the impure? I (liall for the prefent baulk all thefe
latter queftions, and handle only the former,i//^. ^>&^^^^r
any at all are to bee baftiz^ed? orjas the Qaeftion ufcs to be
ft.ited :

, whether the Infants of beleeving Parents^ the Infants of
Saints^ are to be admitted to this Holy Sacrament? And
here alfo arifeth another queftion. Who are to bee meant
by Beleevers and Saints ;^htxhtx only fuch as have the in-
ward vertue of faith and holinefle, who arc r^/i^jf beleevers

ami

ro be

A Sermon of the Baptizing $f Infants.

and Sanftifyed ones, or whether by Beleevers ixiA Saim^

may be meant fuch a faith and Sandity as is Mtward/y fro-
fejfed^ although poffibly the inward grace it felfc ( which
only God can judge of) be altogether wanting ^
Concerning which queftion, although for my own part The infants

I bcleeve we are to underftand it of that which man may ^^^J^''^'^
judge of, and that God hath not made that the condition Bapr/zed,
of his ftrvants applying his Ordinances,, which can be in-
fallibly known to none but himfelf, and cha: therefore the
profeffion of faith and holineife, isinfficienttomake^mcn
pafle for Belcevers and Saints, in the Churches judg^bedt^
yet I Aall at the prefent baulk the handling of this alfo,and
will take it in the fureftfenfe, in the Apoftles fenfe^what
the ^/'^y?/^ means by Beleevcrs and Saints, when he writes
unto the Churches, that I will take to be theftateof the I

Queftion : if by Beleevers and Saints the ^/?^/?/^ mean -z)//?-
^/^ profcflbrs of faith and holincffc • then the Queftion is,
whether f^^/> Infarcts are to bee bafti'^d-^ if the Jpojilehy
Beleevers and Saints mean fuch only as are /^jrW/y holy,
mwardly beleevers, then the queftion is, whether their In^
f ants are to bee BaptiT^d-^ in a word, whether the Infants
of [nch as were or might have been ftilcd Beleevers and
Saints in the Apoftles daies and writings, are to be admitted
to the Sacrament of Baptifme. ■ - .

This priviledgc of the Baptizing of fuch Infants the Chri- ThePrimitire
ftian Church hath been in poffcffion of,for the fpace of fif- Church owne(
teen hundred years and upwards,as is manifeft out of moft *^'
of the Records that we have of antiquity,both in the Greek
and Latine Churchy which I the rather mention in thfe be-
ginning,becaufe many of the Anabaptifts blufli not to fay,
that the Ancients, efpecially the Greek Church, rejefted ic
for many hundred years.- ^ufiine Martyr^ who lived about
t^mo 1 5o(in a Treatife. which goes under his namej ^e*
//>;? 5^, difputes the different condition ofthofcchiidrefl,

B who

AStrmm $fthe Bdpti:{ing $/ Infants.

y^hq dye baptized, and of them who dye unbaptized.
yjrmusy Yfho lived in the fame Century, Lih. 7. cap, 3^.
izkh^Chrifim vmt fcr feipfum omnes falvare\ emnes wquam^
qui fer cum rcnafcuntur in Deum^ Infantes & farvuhs (^ put*
ns^&c. Now it is well known, fay the Gloflers upon that
TiCxt/enafcentia nomine^Dominica dr ApoftoLica pbrap^Baptif-
mum intelligi,

Origen^ who lived in the beginning of the third Century,
in his Treatife upon Rom.6, X/^. 5. faith. The Chureh received
thisTraditionof Baptizing of Infants from the k^po files: and
Homily 8. upon Z^t^/V/V^j Secundum Ecckft^ obfervanfiamj
Baptifmumparvutis dari concedityHom. i/^.inLucam^Parvuli
baptiT^ntur in remijuonem peccatprum: he cals it indeed a Tra-
dition, according to the expreltion of the Ancients, who
ordinarily called the grcatcft points oiFaith^y the name of
Traditions received from the Apoftles. Traditions be-
ing onely fuch things as are delivered from one to another,
whether written or unwritten. And fo did the Apoftic him-
fclfe, 2 T'hejf. 2. i J. when he charged them to hold the Tra*
ditions tvhich they had been taught^ either by word or Bpijlle.
However his calling it a Tradition received from the Apo*
ftles gives us a fufficicnt proofe^that time out of mind,it had
been received in the Church, that it was delivered over to
the Church in his time,and was of antient ufe in the Church
before his time.

Gregory NaP^ian\en.^ Or at. 40. in Baptijmum^ cals Baptifm
figrtaculHm^itacurfumineuntibmy and commands children
to b^ baptized, though afterward he feemed to reftrainit
tocafeofnecefficy.

, Cyprian^ one of the antlenteft Writers amongft the La-
tincs, handles it at large, in Bpifi. 5 6 . AdFidum^ upon this
occafion^F/^^denyednotthe baptifm ofInfants,butde-
.fiyed that they ought to be baptized before the eighth day-,
fjf ??/K;? affures him that by the unanimous conlent of 65.
* Bifliops

A Strmm of the Baptizing pf Infants* «

Bliliops gathered together in a ComceH^ Baptifme was to be '^

adminiftred to Infant Sy as well as to grown men, and not to
be reftrained to any time 5 and jjrovcs it by fuch Argu-
ments as thefe; They are under originall finne, they need
pardon, are capable of grace and mercy, God regards not
age, &c. This tcftiraony of Cyprians is cited and approved
byAuguJl. Epi^.i^. &Lih.^. dem^rit.c^Remijf. pecca.
cap. 5. S* lib' 3- contra Pelag. zndhy Hierom contra Pclag.
lib, 3« Of the fame judgement was Ambrofejih. 2. cap. 1 1 .
De Abraham Patriarchaj and many others of the ancients,
which I relate not to prove the truth of the thing, but onely
th^praltife of it ; and indeed, although Ibme in thole times
queftionedit, as -^/^j-^/, grants in his Sermon, De yerbis
Apojlol. yet the firft that ever made a head againft it, or a
divifioninthe Church about it ,was Baltazar Pacommitanus When the 8«
in Germany in Luthers time, about the year 1527. and fincc 0/ the Anabaj
Ihat time multitudes in Germany have imbraced his opinion, ^^^^*^s»n.
who becaufe they oppoied Pddo-BaptifmeyWQvt forced to re-
iterate their own Baptifme, and thence were called i^na-
baptijis^md [oonipvovcd a dangerous and turbulent Sed
againft the Reformation; not onely working a world of
mifchiefc about CMtinfter and other parts of Germany ^ buc
have with this opinion, drunk in abundance of other dange-
rous Hercfies and Blafphemies, and quickly grew into fuch
divifions,and lub-divifions among tnemfelves,that BuUen-
ger notes that they were grown to no leflc then fourteen fc-
verall Secfts in his time ; Which in truth is the common lot
of all Sedaries 5 who when once they have departed from
the Church, upon every fmall occafion they come to bee
divided again among thcmfclves, and one from another :^^f^^^.«>Ji
As the Ecclefiafticall Story lets us fee in the N^vatians, Ma- ^.^^ ^
cedoniansy EnnemianSyArrians^C^c. which divifions alfo '^^^ ** ^
opened a way to their totall dcftrudion in the end : their
mutuall bickerings among themfelves, being as the beating

B2 of

AS€rm9n fif^he Bapti^ng ef Infants.

of the waves ot the Sea, one againftanother, till all were
changed, as the Hiftorian notes of them. And bccaufe this
Opinionjand divers others which depend upon it, begins
unhappily to take place and fpread among our felvcs in this
Kingdom^and lo the work of Reformation (without Gods
mercyj likclytobemuchhindredby it-,Ifhall (Godwil-
ling)handlc this Queftion more largely, then I have done
any other in this placet,and the rather becaufe of three other
great mifchiefes which go along with it,

Pirft, I fee that all who rejeft the Baptizing of Infants,
do and muft upon the fame ground rejecS the Religious ob-
fervation of the Lords day, or the Chriftian S2hhzx.h^viz.
htc%\xk there is not (fay they j anexpreffeinftitutionor com^
mdndm the New Teftamcnt. Verily, I have hardly either
known5or read5or heard of any one who hath rejeftcd this
of Infants, but with it they rejed that of the Lords day:
now God hath fo bleffed the religious obfervation of the
Lords day in this Kingdom above other Churches and
Kingdoms, that fuch as indevour to overthrow it, deferve
juftly to be abhorred by us.

Secondly, the teachers of this Opinion, wherc-evcr they
prevaile,take their Profelytes wholly off from the Miniftry
ofthe Word and Sacraments, and all other ads of Chri-
ftian coramunion,both publickand private^ from any ,but
thdfe; who are of their own opinion, condemning them all
as limbs of Antichrift, worfhippers, and followers of the
Bdaft : And fo not only labour to caft the godly Minifters
out of the hearts of thofe people whom they have wonnc
to Chrift-, but leave the people whom they infnare with-
outany hope of recovery, whileft they impofe upon their
confcienccs-y to hear none but fuch as may confirmethem
in their errours 5 Anoldtrickof Satan^ which hec taught
the Papifts long agonc,a mecire politick device to keep their
Biiciples^fafl: untot|jcmfelvcs : which unchriftian'courfe,

:. : how

A Sermon of the Baptizing of Infants.

how profperous focver it may ftem to be at the firft, can-
not bebleflcd by God, nor indeed is it, the Lord giving
them up ahuoft every v^here^to other moft dangerous^vile,
and abominable opinions. I deny not but fome few who
are of this opinion are other wife minded, but all our expe-
rience teacheth us that the generality of them do runne this
way.

Thirdly, this opinion puts all the Infants oiall Beleevers
into the felf-fame condition with the Infants of Turks^
and Indians , which they all readily acknowledge • and
from thence, unavoidably one of thefe three things muft
follow. 1 . Either all of them arc damned who die in their
Infancy, being without the Covenant of Grace, having no
part in Chrift, Or, 2. All of them faved,as havingno ori-
ginall finnc,and confecjucntly needing no Saviour •, which
moft of the Anabaptifts in the world doe own, and there-
with bring in all PelagiamfmMniverfall grace^ Free-mil^ (^e.
Or, 3. That although they bee tainted with Originalleor-
ruption,and fo need a Saviour, Chrift doth fro benepUeitOy
fave fome of the Infants of Indians and Turkes, dying in
their Infancy ,as well as fome of the Infants of Chnjiiansi,
and fo carry falvation by Chrift out of the Church,beyon<i
the Covenant of Grace, where God never made any pro-
mife : That God hath made a promile to bee the God of
Belee'vers^znd oi their Seed^ we all know^buc where the pro-
niife is to be found,that he will be the God of the ieed of
fuch Parents who live and die his enemies, and their feed,
notfo much as called by the preaching of the Gofpel, I
know not. Thefe men fay the Covenant of Grace made to
i\\Q^eivs^ differs fpom the Covenant of Grace made with
«^-, but I dcfire to know whether in the <?;^^, or in the d^^^r,
they find any promifc of falvation by Chrift to any Intants
dying in their Infancy, whofe Parents no way belonged to
the Family of God,or Covenant of Grace.

B 3 The

f A Strmm of the BApti:{ing eflnfdms.

The matter then being of fuch confequence, and many
among ft us in fuch danger of being fcduccd,fiirther then is
cafie toimagincjthrough the fubtilty5a(a:ivity,and diligence
of fuch as with a great (hew of Scriptures^ and under a pre-
tence of zeale, doe creep into Houfes ; yca,proclaim thefc
things openly in PulpiCs : I take my (elf bound upoa this
occafion to (hew you upon what grounds the Orthodox
Church hath hitherto retained this pra(flire, and (hall bring
all that I intend to fpeak of it under two arguments, and un-
der them (hall indevour to anfwer whatfocvcr I have found
of any moment objedled to the contrary.
My firft Argument is this. The infants ofbeleeving Parents
t^cy^l^u^ct^ ^ ^^^ fignati. they arewithm

the Covenant the Co'wenmt of grace yhel(mging te Chrtps body ^kingdom ffami^
her€fore muft h 5 therefore are to partake of thefeale of his Covenant^ er the
have the feaie dijUnguiping badge betmen them who are under the Covenant
of the Core, if grace ^and them who are not.

"*''^* Theordinary Anfwer to this Argument is, by denying

that Infants are under the Covenant of Grace • only fome
few deny the confequcnce, that although they werewith-
I in the Covenant,yet it follows not that thcymuft bee fea-

Icd, becaufe (fay they) the ^<?«jjtf;# among the Jcwes were
under the Covcnant.yet received not Circuracifion, which
wasthefealeof the Covenant-, but this receives an eafic
anfwer, the Women were Circuracifed in the Males, clfe
could not God have faid^that the whole houfc of Ifraclvitvc
Circumcifed in the flefh, elfe could not the whole Nati-
on of the Jewes bee called the Circumcifion^ in oppofiti-
on to all the world befide^who were called r/^^ Uncircum-
cifion.
ThuArgiimctu Butforthc better clearing of this whole Argument- I
wade good by fljall indcvour to make good thefc five Conclufions.
five Unciufi' Firftjthat the Covenant of Grace hath alwayes^ for fub-
ftancCjbeen one and the fame.

Second-

A Scrmcft 0fthi Baptix^hg of Infants. p

Secondly, God will have the Infants of fuch as enter in-
to Covenant with him, bee counted his, as well as their
Parents.

Thirdly, God hath ever fince Abrahms time, had a
Sealetobeeapplyedtoftchas emer into Covenant with
him.

Fourthly, by Gods own order , the Seed, or Infants of
Covenanters before Chrifts time, were to bee fealed with
the fealeofadmiffioninto his Covenant, as wcllas their
Parents.

Fifthly, the priviledgeof fuch as are in Covenant fincc
Chrifts time, areas honourable^ large, and comfortable,
both to themfelves and their children,as they were before
Chrifts time: and thefe five Propofitions made good, the
Argument will bee ftrong and undeniable.

The firft is, That the Cove/pant ef Grace, ferfubflanee^joth ^^e 0"^^^"^^!
ahajes been one and the fame ^ both to the ^ewes and to the ofg^racJ^Ifwa"i
Gentiles, Which to underftandjknow, that the new and li- 'he fame for
vingwaytolifewa's firft revealed to Adam, immediately ^"^'^»"^^'
after his fall, and that bleffcd promife concerning the Seed
of the woman was often renewed, and the Patriarchs faith
therein, andfalvation thereby^ recorded plentifully in the
Scripture : but the firft time that ever it was revealed under
the exprelTe name of a League or Covenant was with Abra-
ham -, and therefore wee fhall need look no higher then his
daycs:who becaule he was the firft expliciceCovenanter,is
called the father of the faithfuU- and ever fincc clearly hath
all the World been divided into two diftmft bodies, or fa-
milies-, theonecalled the Kingdome, City, Houfholdof
God, to which all who own the way to life, were tojoyn
themfelves-, and thefe were called the CA//^/*^;! of God, the
Sons of Abnham, the Children of the Kingdom i All the reft
-of the World, the kingdom ofthe DevH^ the Seed of the
Serpent i Strangers from the Covenant of Grace, mthontGod

in

to

Wherein lies
the fubftance
ot the Cove-
nant.

Gen.iy.i.&c.
Gal.g 15.
Rom. 4.:^,

Joh.

Gaf.3.d.

Gen.17,1.

GeR.18.i9,

GaLj.17.1^,

Though noc
the fame for
manner of ad-
miniftration.

A [Sermon of the Bapti^ng ef Infants,
in the mrld^ &c. Now, I fay that this Covenant of Grace
hath for fubftance been alwayes the fame- for fubftance I
{ay, for we mud diftinguifh betwixt the Covenant it felf, -
and the manner of adminiftration of this Covenant .• The
fubftance of the Covenant on Gods part was, to bee Abra-
hams G$d^ and the God of hUfted^ to bee an Al-fufficientfor-
tion^^n Al-fujftcient reward for him^ to give ^efm Chrifl to
him^and Righteeufneffe with him^ both oi ^uflif cation and
oiSan5f'pMion,z.n^everlaflinglife. On Abrahams ^^x^iht
fubjlance of the Covenant was^ to beleeve in the promifcd
MefTiah, to walk before God with a perfect heart^to/^ro/^
God according to his revealed wil^to ^>»/?r»^hisfamily,&c.
The manner of adminiftration of this Covenant at the firft,
was by ^j/'^/, ^indfiadom^ faerifiees^(jrc» And foure hun-
dred and thirty years after, the Law was added with gveat
tcrrour upon Mount 5/;^^^, notasapart of this Covenant,
but as the Apoftle faith exprefly, it was added becaufe of
Tranfgrejsions^ tobecaSchoolemafter to whip to Ckrift :
Plainly in that giving of the Law, there was fomething of
the Covenant of works made with Adam in Paradiie ^ yet
in order to the Adminiftration of the Covenant of grace,
there wasare^^4r/i/? of the Covenant of wcrkes, under
which all men lie by nature, untill they be brought under
the Covenant of Grace: and this was delivered with great
terrour, and under moft dreadfull penalties, that they who
were prone to feek juftification in themfelves^ by finding
the 7«*c<'c^^p*7Di'T»yo/.ii, thcimpoflibility of their keeping the
Law, might be driven to feek for a better Mediator, even
the Lord Jcfus Chrift, as was excellently fliadowed out,
:Exod. 20. 18519,20. D^«^ 5. 24. when they cryed out to
Mcfes^thatthey might no more heart this dreadfuEvojce^ which
would kill them, but that they might be fpoken unto by a
Mediator: and God laid, they had mil /poken, andpre-
fently accepted Mofes for their typicaU mediator, and by him
• ! gave

A Sermon of the Bapiz.wgof Infants. jf

gave them the Gofpel in \ht\x Tabernacle Ordinances* And
there was alfo fometbing of the admim(lratlon of the. Cove^
nnm of grace •, partly, becaule all the threatning and cutftng
part of it was intended as a preparative and means to fit
them for Chrift-, and partly jbecaufe the direfting part of it
containes that i/^r^r/i?/^ whereby Abraham^ and allhisy^^flT
were ordered to walk in obedience towards God. .,\

To conclude'tbis; all their excernall promifes in cafe of
obedience, all oucv;ard bkffings which were to beeenjoyr
ed by them, xh^Lindoi Canaan^ and all the good things
in it, all outward punifhments and threatnings, lofTe of
their Countrey, goinginto captivity, all their Sacrifices,
their Wafhings, their Sprinklings^theirholy pcrfonsjioly
Feafts, and holy things, were all of them but fo many Ad-
miniftrationsot the Covenant of Grace : Earthly things
thcn^ were not only promiled or threatned more diftindly
and fully,then now they arc to them who are in Covenant,
but were figures,figncs, types, and Sacraments of fpirituall
things, to beeinjoyedbothby them and by us ^ as might
bee cleared by abundance of par^ticulars ; Take but that
one inftance of the Land of Canaan^ which albeit in it
felf it was but like other Lands, yet was it by the Lord
fandifyed to fpirituall ends,where hee would have his Ta-
bernacle pitched ^and Temple built,out of which !and,when
the ten Tribes were carried captive, hee is faid to have put
them out of his fight: the very Land being figuratively ho- ^King^iyji
ly, and a figne of Godsprefcnce, the refting of Gods peo-
ple there,a figne of their eternal! reft in Heaven^into which
miMofesxhQ Law-giver, but ^ojhua, or ^efHs,\X\t type Heb.2.n4,<
of their true Jelus^was to bring chem: neitherdidtheLord «•
promife them entrance into, or continuance in that Land,
but upon the fame conditions upon which hee proi^ifeth ^^Hj^^J^*^^^^^
cternalllife, as true Faith in the Gofpel, wiibthcloveand
feare of God, and obedience of bis Contoandements :

C God-

12 A Sermon pfihe BAftiT^ng $f Infants.

Godlineffe having then, ask hath now and alwayes, the
tr* 6^*^^"^' promife of good things for this hfe, and the hfc to come,
>eillo.i2r ofcarthlythingSjthcn more diftindly and fully, and typi-
3.with ii,i, cally^but of heavenly things more generally and fparingly*
t Cw.io!^^,7 whereas now on the contrary, there is a more clearc and
I ' * ' full revelation and promife of heavenly things, but the pro-
mife of things earthly, more general! and iparing ; Now
thiscxt^rmll AdmimJlratio» of the Covenant, is not the
fame with u^^ as it was with them, but the Covenant is the
fame •, they were under the fame m/fery hy Nature, had the
fameChrifi^ the Lambe flaine from the beginning of the
World, the iame cenditions of Faith and Refentanee^o bee
made partakers of the Covenant, h^id the i^mt gravies pro-
mifcdinthe Covenant, Circuracifing of their heart, to
love the Lord, &c.Theirs was difpenfed in darker Prophe-
cies, and obfcurcr Sacrifices, types, and Sacraments,ours
moxtgloriou^yzxxA.clearel'j^ and in a greater mcafure : the
cloathes indeed doe differ • but the body is the fame in
both.
Thcickivtityof As is apparent,if5 fifft, you look but into the Prophc-
*'*^^°''^nd" ciesthatweremade,gP^r.5i.35. 7/3/. 5P. 21. ^oel2. ^7.
CcnXs^pro- ^nd many other places,where the fame things are promifed
red. tathe Gentilcs^when the Gofpcl fliould bee preached unto

! ' them which were fit fl promifed to Abraham^2^nA to his feed 5

ll^a.V^* 2^1 . ^^^ ^^^^ fully,if you look into the New Teftamcnt, where
JoeV2.32.* youfhallfinde, 7:«^.i.54,55, 69,70, 72,73. X^.i'. 2.31.32.
^nk.f.j4.&c. jj^^^ Chrifl, and the Kingdom of grace by him, is ac-
knowledged to bee the fummeoFtheOath and Covenant,
which God had promifed to ^ir^-^^w, and to his feed: So
cJlf4//^.2i.4i.43. the fame Vineyard that was let to the
>*'^ Jews,{hould afterward bee let to the Gentiles : the fame
Kingdom of God which was formerly given to the Jewes,
fhould bee taken from them, andgivento the Gentiles: So
^«?* II.' the Gentiles were to bee ingraffed into the fame

ftocfc

A Sermon dfthe Baptizing $f Infants. j -

ftock/;!^ which formerly the ^mes\vxdi grown, and from
which they were now to bee cut off, and into which in the t.uk.2.51;
end they mould bee ingrafFed again: SoG^/.g. 8.14. i5. {^^^J^^Mi
Abraham had the fame Gofpel preached to him, which is cli^ijlj/^^
. now preached to us, the fame blcfling beftowcd upono/- p
braharnycomcs on the Gentiles through Jefus ^Chrift, that ^^•** ^^'
they (as well as he J might receive the fr&mfe of the Sfirit
through Faith • they who receive the promife of the Spirit
through Faith, have the blcfling of Abraham come upon
them: as clearc is ihzx ^Ep he f 2.i3.totheend of the chapter^ •
the partition wall which fevered us from the fexviSy is now
broken down, and the Gentiles who formerly were a-
farrc off, are now taken in, and made Inter- Commoners
with the J^ewes: the Apoftle alluding to the manner of the
Jewifli woi (hip, where beyond the Court wherein the ^ews
did worOiipjthcre was another Court divided from it by a
fcptorwall, which was called, Atrit4m gentium (^ immun-
doruMy the Court of the Gentiles and of the unclean, nea-
rer thew which none of them might approach unto the
Temple •, but now,faith \itt^The partition wall is broken down^
ani rvee are no more ftr angers and Forainers • bm made feU
low-Citiz^ns xvith the Saints^ and of the houfhold of God-^and
tvith them grow up into an holy Temple in the Lord-^M which
(hews that the very felfe-fame priviledges formerly ra^de *
psculiar to the Jews, are now through Chrift communica-
ted to the Gentiles. And this will yet more fully appeare, if
wee confider how St. Paul to the Galatians^ (hewes that the
fame feed o( Abrahawy {bmuch fpoken of in the Covenant
made with himjis now found among the Gentile5,as it was
formerly among the Jews^thtrcyou fliall finde three forts of
Abrahams feed: Firft, C^r//?,(74/.j. i^.therootandftock,
thehead,andelderbrotherof all the reft. Secondly, all
true beleevers are Abrahams feed, cap. 3. 29. thefe onely arc
made partakers o( tht ^irituall pgitt of the Covenant

C z Third-

X

14 ASermenoftheBapi^nggflnfants.

Thirdly,you fhall finde another feed of Ahraham^vho were
only circutncilcdinthc j?e/&5 and not in the hearty who
though they were cither hornoi AbrJums feed, or profejjed
Abrahams hiihy andfo were Jewes/^t"?/, though not 7^4/^/5
made xho\\g\\ not born ^erves^ becomrning Prolclytes, ne-
ver came to make Abrahams God their All-fufficient porti-
on^ but placed their happincfie in fomewhat, which was
not Chrifty either by feeking jufi'ification by the workes of the
loiT),ia3. Law.beirjg ignorant of Gods right coufm^e^ and going about to
. ejlablifl) their own right e$ujnc([e did not fubmit thewf elves unto
therighteoufneffeof Gody or placed their happineflc, in fa-
fjing the lujls of the fltfl), going a whoring after the Crea-
ture % and lo though they were Abrahams feed by profefion
and outward cleaving to the Covenant, yet were to bee caft
ofFwith the reft of the uncircumcifed^of whom Ijhmael amd
Efau were types, Gal. 4. 22. drc Even fa it is now in the
times of the Gofpel, we have now Jefus Chrift, the Elder
brother, the firft-borne of the Covenant, wee have alfo
true beleevers , who are brethren and Co-heires with him,
who are properly the heir es by promife, and wee have alfo
' fomc who are onely a holy feed by externa/l profefion^GaL

I 4. 29. who either with the falfe teachers, which PaukhcxQ

I fpeaks of , mingle juftification by the Law a^id Goffeltogether^

\ or with others, a Ttm. 3.5. though they have a forme of

godline^ey yet deny the power of tt in their lives andconverfati-
\ ' ons. So much for the firft Conclufion, that the Covenant of

; grace^ for fubftanccjwasalwayes one and the fame.

|! , ^ Ever fince God; gathered a diftinft, feleft number out of
Infams^rlk r* ^^^ world, tobeehis KingdomjCity,Houfe-hold,inoppo.
thtoCovenant fitiou to the tcft in thc wotld, which is the kingdom, city^
fcntl'^''' *'''' .houfe hold of Satan, hee would have The Infants 0f aU who
^ * are taken into Covenant with him^ to bee accounted his^ to belong

tohim^ to his Church and family^ and not to the Devi Is. As it
i% \:i other Kingdoms^CorporationSjand Families, the chil-
dren

A S er monef the Bapti^ngef Infants. M^

dien of all Subjedls born in aKingdomCj axe bom that
Princes Subjc<fts-,where the Father '\sz Free-man^ the childc
is not born ajlave -^ where any are hught to bee fer<vamsj
their children born in their Maftcrs houfe, arc born hisjer-
vants. Thus it is by the Laws of almoft all Nations^ and
thus bath the Lord ordained it fliall bee in his Kingdom and
Family-, iht children follow the Covenant- condition of
their Parents M hee take a Father into Covenant, hee takes
the children in with him 5 if hee rejeft the Parents out of
Covenant5the children arecaft out with them-, Thus with-
out all qucftion it was in the time of the Jews^ Gen. 17.9. £^^^^-*'^*o
^c.and when any ofany other Nation, though a Cmaanite ^^"^ '^^''^ *
or Hittite, acknowledged Abrahams God to bee their God,
^^)f and their r^//^/-^?^ came into covenant together.

And fo it continues////, though the Anabaptifls boldly
deny it: ^^.9.38,39. when P^f^r exhorted his hearers, ^.2.38,59.
who were pricked in their hearts^to repent and bee baptized ^f^^l^ *""*'
for the remiffion of fins^hee ufeth an argument to perfwade ^ ;
them, taken from the benefit which (hould. come to their fa- '
fterity-j {ox the Fromife (faith hee) isunt&yeuand nntoyottr
childrenyandto all that are afarre €Jfy even as many as the Lord
our God Jhall call : if once they obey the call of God, as A-
graham did, the promife was mad^ 10 them and tp their fhjl-
^r<f/;, whether they who obey this call were the prefent Jews
to whom heefpake, or were afar of: whethtr by afarre
offjyouvvi\\ix\Q2inihc Gentiles^ who as yet tporihipped afar
fiJ^,or the Jews,orany wlio asyetwcre unlforn,^r\dSo\vtYC
Xtarre . off )n s^/w^5, or whether they dwelt in the remotcft
pirtsofttie world, and lower^ afarre off in /^//»rtf- the Ar-
gument holds good to the end of the world,Repenc and be
baptized for the remiffion of fins, andyee (hall receivcthe
Holy Ghoft ^ F&r^the Fromi[e k made t'o youAndta^mr^.cfjtl''
dreny they jhall bee made ^recof 6ods Ciiyv aecording to
Abrahams Copy-, I will bee thy God^andthe Giddfihyf^edX^Ai

Q S Zachens

'lg ^A Sermon of the Bdpi^ng ef Infants.

Zacheus the Publican once receive Chrift himfelf^btt hee a
Cemile^^S'^omt think hee was-^bee hee ^ great finner^^ftQcm-
ed as a heathen^as we all know hee was Jet him profeffe the
9, faith of Chrift,and the Covenant of falvation comes to his '
houfey (ov nowhcQiS vnidcafonne of Abrah4m:th2itis,Alra-
hdms promt fe novo re^cheth him.

Neither can the evidence of this place bee eluded by fay-
ingjthe promifc heremeant^ is of the extrayrdmarj gifts of
the Holy Gho/l^ to [peak with tongues ^(^c. For wee all know
that 4^ who then beleeved and were baptized, did not re-
ceive thofe extraordimtry gifts of the Holy Ghofl-^ andbefidej
this Argument remains ftill in force to bee ufed to the end
of the Woildj who ever heleeves and is bapti^d,[ball receive
re?mPion of ftns^and the gift of the Holy Ghojt: Which was
not truCjif by the Holy Ghoft was meant only thofe extraor^
dinar y gifts.
OhjS. Nor^ fecondly, can it bee avoided by that fliift of others

^^f^» who interpret it thus-. To you and your children^ as many of
them 06 the Lord fh all call : that is, (fay they J whether _jf(?«r
felves^oi your childre/j, or any other whom the Lord JhaU
ca/l^ ifthey repent and bee baptized, they lliall receive ihe
gift of the Holy Ghoft-, for it is plaine, that the ftrength of
this Argument Ueth in this, That if they did repent and
were baptizcd,the promife fhould bee made good to them^
and to their children^ and what comfortable argument can
this bee taken from refpe(fl to their c/j^/Y^r^;/, if the Apo-
ftle muft be interpreted as thefe men would have him ? vi^
Tou and your Children have hitherto been an holy feed, but
now if you belecve in Chrijl yeurfelves , yo'tr children Jhall be
iif no better condition then the refl of the Pagan world^ fir angers
from the Covenant of God -^ but if afterward any of them^ or
^ of the Heathen fhall for their parts beleeveandbe baptizedj
thefr particular ferfons pall bee took into Covenant, but their
children ftill left out: had this think you been a comfor-
table

A Strmm of the Baptizing oflnftnts. "^ I -j

table Argument to pcrfwade th^m to c6me in, in relati-
on CO the good of their children after them ? The plaine
ftrength of the argument is, God hath now rememhredhis Co- .
vemnt to Ahraham^in fending that hlejjedfced^in whom heefro- '
mi fed to bte the God of him and hkfeed ^ do not you by your un-
heliefe^defriveyonr felves^ and'^our po ferity of fo excellent a ^
gift. And except in relation to the Covenant, there was
no Gccafion to name their children^ it had been f ufficienc
to have faid^ aproniifeismadeto/^w4;?y a^ the Lord (hall

As plain it is out of the 1 1 of the Rom. 1 6. &c. where Rom ii.i5.
the Apoftlesfcopeistolhew that wee Gentiles have now ^f^"^''*
the fame graffing into the true Olive which the Jewes for-
merly had,and ouvf refent graffing in^is anfwerable to their
prefentcafling out, and their fi«ir/>jtg* /> in thekttercnd of
the World, fhall bee th^ fame graffing ^>^(though more gloi-
rioufly; as ours is now: Now all know that when they
were taken in, they and their Children were taken in,
when they were broken off, they and thdr children were
broken off, when they fhall bee taken in, in the latter
end of the world, they ?indthdi: children fhall bee taken in,
and that becaufe the roote is holy^thsit is, Gods Covenant with
Abraham^ ifaac and^acob, extends yet unto them when their
unbeltefejballbee taken aw Ay. The roore being like Nebuchad-
nezzar s tree, the tree he wen down, and the roote bound
with a band of iron untill feven times were pafTed ovei* it,
and then the bands fhould be broken, and the roote fhould
fpring, andthetree fhould grow again : So their prefent
Nation //*^/^AJ tree^ is cut down, and this holy roote the
Covenant made with their forefathers, is fufpended^ bound
with an iron barre oiunbcleefe^ bltnd»e(fe heing come upon
themyuntillthefulneffeofthe Gentiles bee come inland then aU
Ifraeljhallbeefaved. And mark that in all this difcourle^thc
holineffcofthe branches there fpoken of, isnot meant of a

perloii;

i8 A Sermon of the Bapti^ng oflnfAnts.

p^rfonall iaherenc holiacfle^but a derivAtive holineflre,a ho-
V lihcfTe derived to them from their 4nceftors • The fir fl fruite
is hly^ the lumpe hol-j^ the roote holy , the branches holy^ that
. is, the Fathers holy accepted in Cove^iant with God, the children
heloved for their fathers Jake '^ and when thevaile of unbe-
licfc iliall bee taken away, the children and their poftericy
{hall be taken in zg^mjbecaufe beloved for their Fathers fakes.
, Now then it our graffing in, bee anfwerable to theirs in all,
or any of thefe three particulars, wee and our children are
graflPed in together.
O^. But here is no mention made of ^^^^ //?/4.^^/|'r4j^>;^
Anfw. Wtt muft not teach the Lord to fpeak , but
with reverence fearch out his meaning, there is no mention
made ©t carting out the ^emjh infants^ neit^her here nor elfe-
. rvhere : when hee (peaks of eating away the Kingdonlc of •
;God from them, and giving it to the Ger/trles \vho would
bring forth fruitejno mention of the Infants of che one^ or of
tht other ^ but the one arid the other for thefe outward dif^
penlations, are comprehended in their parents,^ the bran-
ches in the roote^ the Infants of the godly in their p.^rents^accoV'
ding to the tenor of his mercy,the inFants of the wicked in
their Parents,according to the tenor of his juftice.
And yet plainer, (if plainer may beej is that fpeechof
iCor.7.14. the Apoftle, in s Corinth, j.14.. The unbeleeving husband iS
'vMcarcdf fanBified by the wife, and the mbeUeving wife is fanctifed by
the husband^ el fe were your children uncleane^ but now they are
holy t, the plaine fcopeand meaning whereof is this-, the
belpeving Corinthians, among other cafes of confcicnce
which they had fentto the Apoftle for his relolution of,
had written this for one, whether it were lawfuU for them
' who were converted, ftill to rctaine their Infidell wives,
or busbaRds : their doubt feemcs to ari(c from the Law of
G4?^, wbich was in force to the Nation of the J^wes j God
haci not onely forbidden fuch marriages to his people,but
^^..; rr in

A Sermon of the Baptizing of Infants. ^^

in Ezra's time, they put away not onely, their wives, -^t Ezra.io^
all the children that were borne of them, as not belonging
to the Common-wealth of Ifrael •, and it was done accor-
ding to the Law^ and that Law was not a particular Edift
which they did agree upon , but according to the ftandirig
Liwoi Mofes, which that word there ufed fignifiethj a^d |i..H.^j.'
in Neiemahs tim^^ 'the children who were borne of fuch
marriages 3 were accounted a Mungrcll kind^whom iV^)&^wi- ^«^hem,i3.i
^^curfcd. Now hereupon the (e Corinthians doubted whc;- ^*
ther their childrcn^as well as their wives, were not to beoc-
counted uncka/te^ and fo to be put away according to thofe
examples 5 to which the Apoftle anfwirs. No, they were
not to ie fut ^way. Upon what fpeciall reafbn foever, that
Law was in force to the ^ewes , believing Chrijlians were
not in that condition, the unbcleeving wife was fandified
in the beleeving husband , quoad hec^ fo farre, as to bring
forth an holy feed ^ were it with them as when ^(?M of them
were unbeleevers , fo that neither of them had a preroga-
tive to iatitle their children to the Covenant of grace, tfecir
children would be an unclean Progeny- or were the chil-
dren to be reckoned in the condition oi the worfer parent,fo
that the unbeleever could contribute more to Pagdn^fme^thcn
the beleever to Chriftianiiy-^ it were fo likevyii^:^ but ^he
cafe is otherwife, the beleeving husband hath by Gods
ordinance a fan^flified ufe of his unbeleeving m//^, /(? as by
Gods fpeciall promife made to belecvers and their Seed,^^^^^^
they were inverted, in, and to the mofifpintHallendoi^ mar-
riage, the con.inumce of a holy feed ^v/htvcin the Churchis to
be propagated to the worlds end-, and the cafe is herein
relation to the pofterity for y^m W/priviledges, as in ether
marriages, fox civili priviledgcs,asfuppofeaP;'/w^3joriV^-
bleman marry with a woman oibafeoimeane birth, thougii
iZigeneraUit be true, that the children of thofe that be bjj^^
are born ^4/i, as well as the children oi Nobles zx^ borne

D Noble

'^ ^o A Sermon of the Bapti^ng oflnfmts.

' ' Whky yet here the iffue hath honour from the T^her, and is
not accounted h^e by the bafencde of the Mother. This I
■ take to be the plaine meaning of the Apoftles anf wer : But
becaufethe Anabaptijis do very much endeavour to weaken
c the evidence of this Argument, Ifhall indeavourto cleare
.„ .H,^ '. \i from their' acceprions. They utterly deny thatthis place
is meant of any Foederall holine^e^ but oUcgitmation^ which
they call civill holineffe, and fo interpret the Corhthians
doubt to be 5 rvhether their marriage mth Unheleeversrvere
not now a nullity y and their children thereupon to bee^tf-
y/^/^,illegitimate, orBaftards, andthe Apofllcsanfwerto
be, that becanfe the Unhekeving wife is JAnlfifiedto the be-
leeving husband, that is, their marriage remaines lawfuB,
therefore their children are not fpurious, but lawfully be-
gotten. But that this cannot be the meaning;! clearly proVe
. by thefe four Arguments. •

uArmnmt ^^^^^^ uncleannefle and holineile, when oppofed one to
Becaufe im- the Other, are never taken for civtHy lawful! or unlawfuU -,
:ieanneffe and f^^cleanneffe indccd^when oppofed to cleanntp^tmy betaken
whe"c wken i^ fcverall fenfes, an uncleane veffell, an uncleane cloth, an
for civuiy law- unclcanc garment-, when oppofed to cleane^ may fignifie no-
^"^^* thingbut dirty orfpottedibut when uncleannes is oppofed to

Mineffe, itisalwayestakeninay^rr^rffenfe, referring to a
tabernacle ufe, to a right of adminion into, or ufe in, the Ta-
bernacle or Temple, which were types to is of the vifible
I *ritn,4*5. = tfehtirch : and holineffe is alwaies taken for zfefaration of per-
Jin^ or things from common to {acred ufes : Even the meats
'anddrmkesofbeleeversfan^ifedto thcm,{erve for a religious
I'/^f/zri^^/^/^, even to refrefh them, who are the Temples of
theholy Ghoftsfothatthcyhavcnot'Onelya lawful!; but
AT/&tf/jiufeof their meat and drinke, which Unbeleevers have

^AT^^b whom yeV their meat and drinke is civilly lap-
/^JjIfSsd 3i;fi36onik'nt)iolin;/

'mc-^ -- -■••- And

Ti\^\

A SermQn of the Baptizhg of In/dm. ' **

And whereas fome fay, i rhe^. 4. 5,4, jAhatri^/^ a Oh]^^.
morall vertue found among Heathens,ls called by the name
oiSanBificatien, Let every onepofpffe his veffell, not in the luji
ofcoy/cupifemeybut in San^tficatton and honour.

I Aalwer, chaftity among Heathens, is never cald ^^;y- -^^fi^*
&if cation, but among heleevers ic may well bee called /J,
being a part oi the New crearion,a branch of their fandlifi- 1

cation,wronght by rhe Spirit of God, a part of the inward
adorning of the Temple of the holy Ghoft. So that the ■ . ,
meaning cannot be^your children are holy vthatiSjttow they ^-f^ ";
are nothaftards-^ but rather, whereas before^ hothyon and
they were uncleane^ and might have nothing to doe with the
Temple of God , now both you divAjour children are a holy
feed, according as was fliewed to Peter in his vifion, where
God lliewed him, that the Gentiles formerly no better then
uncleane beafis , and creeping things ^ Jhonld upon their con-
verjion to Chriji bee no longer ejleemed con^mon or de-
filed » J,

Secondly, this being f o^ had this been the meaning ,\ elfe xhe /poftic
were your Children unclean^ but now they are hol^ . elfe hid anfwcrhadn
your children been ^4/?Wj^ but now thty atclegitimtC'^^^^^^^^'^*
the Apoftlesanfw^^^md^Pt been ^f/^^, bccaufe then if one
ofthe Parents had not been aBeleevcr5and lobyhis be-
ing a beleever, fanftifiedhisunbeleeving Wife, their chil-
dren muft have been Baftards .- whereas wee know their
children had been legitimate^being borne in lawfuii Wed-
locke, though neither of the Parents had been abcleevcr^:
Marriage being afecond Table duty, is Uwfull (though not
fan(flified)to Pagans as well as to Chriftians, and the legi-
timation or illegitimation ofthe iffue depend not upon the
Faith\ but upon the w^m^^ of the Parents-, let the mar-
riage be lawfull, and the iflue is legitiaiate,whether oney or- -'^ ;«vt^
bothy otneither ofthe Parents be beleevers or infidels .• take
but away lawfull marriage, betwixt the Man and the Wo-

D 2 man^

9i A Strmon of the Bapti'^Qng 9flnfmt$.

^^?f ' ^ ;inah:, and the iflbe is illegitiinate,whcthcr one or both , or

neitherofthe Parents are beleevcrs or infidels; withall, if

the children of ^^^^^f;?;^ beBaftards, and the marriage of

Heathens no marriage, then there is no adultery among

heathens, and fo the leventh Commandeirent is altoge-

I ther in vaine in the words of it as to them.

\.Argummu Befides St. Tauls reafon had no (ircngth in it^ fuppcfing

^or had the the Tcxt wcre to be interpreted as thefe men would have it^

pemhrda'^r '^^^^^^^"^^^^^y ^''^^y)'^^^^^'^^^^^^^^^ maniagewasan un-
cafoninir,if lawfuU wedlocke, and fo confequently their children Ba-

ilLv^^^!u'^ ftardstnow mark what kinde of anfwer they make the A po-
licy woaia r,..' 1 r It r i'li *■

lave it, Itle giV^)Vere )ee not tarvfnll man and mfc^ jour chtldrm were

! Baftards^ butbecaufe the unbekeving Wife ufanffifedin the

husbatid^ (ire. becaufeyour marriage is a law full marriage^ your
children are legitimate. What ftrength of reafon is in thisf
if this had been their doubt or queftion,whether then mar-
riage were not a nullity , the Apoftle b'j his K^poftoliek ah-
thority might hzvQ definitively anfwcred, without giving a
reafon, 'jOur marriage is goody znd your children legitimate^
but i^Pattl will go about to fatisfie them by reafon,& prove
them to bemiftaken, it behoved him to give fuch a reafon
which fhould have fome weight in it, but this hath' none 5
kt their doubt (as thefe men frame it)and the Apoftles an-
fwcrfas thefe men interpret him)togaher,and you will ea-
fily fee the invalidity of it •, We doubt ^ fay the Corinthians,
we are not law full man and wife •, and that therefore our ^htU
dnn are Baft ards. No, faith Paul^ yoti are miftaken^and I
prove it thus^Wereyee not Uwfuliman a^:d wife ^ yenr children
wen haft Ar ds '^ hut hecaufe yee are lawfuU man a/d wlfe^your
., children are not baftards. Is there any argument orproofe

in this !r;

- ^FwiytKlYj accordihgt<!)///^their interpretation 5 the A-

poftks lanfwer could no wayes have i^eached to the quieting

oi ihtk eonfiiences '^ their doubt was, whether according

t : to

'A Strmm of the Baptizing of Infants. ^ j

to the example in Ezra , they were not [to put away their
wives and children, as mt belonging to Cod^ as being a Seed
whom <jod would not own among his people*, iiow what
kind of quiet would this have given them, to tell them that
their children were not Baftards^ We know the ^etvs did
not^z/Mtt'/yftheir Baftards, as not belonging to the Cove-
nant of God-, Fhares^znd Zarah^znd^epthah, and innume-
rable others^though bafiards^vjctc circumcifed^ and not cut
off from the people of God.

And whereas fomeobjeftout oiBeut. Q^.-s.that baftards
did not belong to the Covenant among the ^ews^ becauie
Cod there forbad a baflard to come into the Congregation of the
Lord.

lAnfwer, that is meant onelyoi bearing office in the i>«r.25X
Church, or fomc fuch like thing , and not of being under
the Covenant, belonging to the Church:asis manifeft^not
onely by what hath been vow faid oi ^efthah and others,
who were circumcifed,and offered facrifices, and drew nigh to
Ggd^ as well as any other -, but the very text alledged gives
fuificient light, that it cannot be meant otherwayes •, be-
cauie in that place 5 who everts anBunuch y or wounded in
his ffonesJ[\uh the fame exclufion from the congregation of
the Lord : and I hope no man will dare to fay, that none EfA.<,g,3,Ji.
fuch^are holy to the Lord-^H they {hould,the Scripture is full e- AO.8.27.
nough againft them : that putting away of E:{ra was of an
higher nature then bare illegitimation t, and therefore it be-
hooved the Apoftle to give another manner of fatisfacJti-
onto their doubtfuU confciences, then to tell them their
children were not Baflards: Therefore 1 condudcf, that
this holmeffe being the fruits of one of the Parents being a belee-
njer^ mujl he meant offome kinde ofho/ineffe , which js not corn-
won to the feed of them whofe Parents are both Unbeleevtrs^md
that is enough for our purpofe. 'jjA^'

Yet their remainestwo O bjcflions to bee anfwered,

which

f 24 ^ Sermon of the Bd^tlT^ng $f Infants.

which are made againft ;his our incerpretation.
ijiS -Eirffjtlie Unbelee'ving wife^ is here (lud to he fanBiped^ as

well as the Child is faid to bee holy , and the Origmall word
is the fame for both, one the verhyXhe other the nome:\i then
the child is h&ly^ w'it\\^ feeder all ho liffeffe^ then is alfo the u»^
belecvjng wife fancUfledwkh z feeder all San^iificatrofi^ and (b
the rv//^5 although remaking a heathen5may be yet counted
to belong to the Covenanr^grace.
fe'Cihl^Greek ^ Anfwcr Jndecd there would be weight in this objedion
j^repoVuion if -the Apoftle had faid th^ UMeeving Wi(e is fandlified,
£gnifying faas ^nd no moi'e, as he fimply fays, the children zx^holy^^ but
\q2\^!\6^7. ^^^^ he doth not fay, he faith indeed the Unheleeving wife
!!Pet.\.5.Aa.4. is fand.fied in the beleeving htdihandy or to the beleeving hus-
,12.1 Cor.7.1 J i^^^, that ip^to his ufe^as all other creatures are, as the bed.
he lies on, the ;^^^/^ hee eats , the cloaths heeweares, the
j; bcaft he rides on^ are ian^Sified to himjand f o this/^A?^/^-

■ ednejfe of the wife is not a fancSification offtate-^ but bnely

, of ufe y^nd oithis t^jexo be fandlified to the beteeving husbandry
whereas the holines and fandification.that is fpoken of the
children, is a hoUnciTc oifiate^ and not only a fandification
to the parents /^y^..
2.0hje&. Thlt holinefle of the Children is /5^r^ meant , which

could not.be, unlefTe one of the Parents were fanftifyed
XQ the other, which is the force of the Apoftles arguing ,the
unheleever is fanBtfiedioxhtbeleever^ ^//^ were not the chil-
dren holy,!but uncleane .• but fcederall hohneffe of childixn
may be where the Parents are not fandlifiedjonc in or to the
other, as in baftardy, Davids child by Bathfheba^ Phares
2ind Zdrah^ 5^W4^/ children by Thamarr, the ffraelites chil"
drcn by the Conciibines,y4^r4^4;»/ fonne Ifljmaelhy Hagar^
&CC. in which cafes thechildrcn were foederallyW^,. and
I accordingly were circumcifecj, ^ and yet the Harlot not (an-

dified in ox to the Adulterer pr Fornicator, though a belce-
ver, ..- :^' "^ ;

I

A Sermon of the Baptizing of infants. 25

I anfwer,we muft attend the Apoftlcs fcope^Wch is to fliew Anfr?.
that the children would be unholy , iisihtfatth ^nd ^elever^
flyip of one of the Parents could not remove the barre^which.
lies /;^r)&^^/^£'r, being an unbeleever, againft the producing
of an holy kcd^becaufe one of them wa^ a Pagan, or unheletver ,
therefore the child rsouldnot he an holy feed^ unleffe the faith or
beleeverjhif of the other Parent could remove this. bar. N o w t his
can have no pkce of an Argument, in any cafe 3 where one
of the Parents is not an Infidell: but this was not the cafe a-
mong the Jewes •, Hagar, and Thamar, and the Concubines^
ho'^tvtx fin full in thole a^s^ yet themfelves were beleevers,
belonging to the Covenant of God, and that barre lay not
againft their children, as did in the unbeleeving wife: indeed
if a beleeving man or woman fhould adulter oujly beget a
childe upon a Pagan^ a Heathen^ or Unbeleever.thQVt this ob-
jedion dcferves to bee further weighed 5 but here it comes
not within the compaffe of the Apoftles Argument.

Before I pafle from this fecoad conclufion^ let me further R^afon why
fliew you why the Lord will have the children of beleeving aichinflnfs''^
Parents reckoned even in their Infancy , to belong to him, accoumcd his.
Firft, his ovjn beneplacitum^hisixtt grace and favour which
moves him to fhew mercy to whom he will, is a flifficient
anfwertoall: Butfecondly, he willhave it for^/^^jr/^^^-
ry. It is the honour of other Princes, that all who are born
in their kingdome fhould bee accounted borne their Subjeifs-^
and the honour of great Mafters, that the children of their
fervantsborn in their hofes, iTiould be born their fervants :
Solomon counts it a piece of his glory ^that he had fervants ^^'^^^^•^•7«
born in hb houfe. And on the other fide, it is a diihonout-i
to a King not to be able legally to lay claim to thofb born
in his kingdome,but that another King,yea,an enemy mi^t
/e'^4Z^^ challenge them to be d/^Subjeds. So is it;v^ithtb^
•Lordjhe having left all the reft ot the worlid,^ tabi^ yifil^ljf
the dcvUs kingdome, will not for his ovfnglor^es fake per^

mit

^ ^ A Sermon of the Ba^tiT^ng $f Infants.

mit the Devil to come and lay viiiblc claime to the fonnes

and daughters, begotten by thofe who are the children of
the moft High. And thirdly, he doth it both for the com^
formnd duty of tho(c who are in Covenant with him, partly
I lay, for their comfort and priviledge, w hile they may lee
their chJMre^rt vrfibl^ to be prov^idcdfbr by a better Father^
under a Covenant of Grace, to whofe care, and un.
der whofe wing they may leave them^whenthemfelves Ihal
failc •, and partly to bee an obligation to bring them u^for
God, not to them [elves, muchlelTeto the^^W, but ever
to look upon themfelves in the education of their children,
to be but nurfing Fathers and Mothers, te train them up in the
nurture and feare of the Lor d^ unto whofe kingdom^ family,
and Covenant they thus belong.

I have been the larger upon thefc two firft concl-ufions,

becaufe indeed the proving ofthefe^ gains the rvhole caufe ,

if the Covenant be the fame, and children belong to it,then

they arc to be owned as Covenanters^ and to be admitted to

the diftinguifhing or difcriminating fign betwixt Gods pco-

- pie and the devils-, and this the moft learned of the Ana-

baptifts doe profeffe, that if they knew a Child to be holy,

they would baptize it. In the other Conclufions I lliall be

more briefe.

^.Conclufion The Lord hath appointed and ordained a Sacrament or

fealeofinitattontobeadminijlredunte them who enter into C$^

venant with hlm^Circtimcifion for the time of that adminiftra-

tion which was before Chrifts incarnation, hapifmefince the

time of his incarnation^both of them the fame facramentfor

tht fpirituall part,though differing in the outward Elements-

both appointed to h^^difiingmfhing pgnes^ betwixt Gods

people,' and the Devils people ; both of them the way and

meancs of foclnine entrance & admiflion into the Church;

fc^f^of them to be adminiftrcd but onse^ atid none might be

^cccivcdihto the Commt^nion of the Church of thc^en^es,

until!

A Sermon of the B4ftiz,wgof Infants. 5g

iintill they were cir£umci[ed^ nor into the Communion of the
Church of the Chriftians untillchey be Bapti:^ed^ none but
the circumci(?d might eat of the Fafchall Lambj none may
butthofe who are baptized, be admitted to eat tht Lords
Supper, which fucceeds in the room of the Paffeoverj and
this om Lord him/elf taught us by his own example, who
vjdiscircumctfed^ asaprofeffed member of the Church of
the Jewes, and when he fet up the new Chriftian Church
he would be initiated into it^ by the Sacrament of Bap-
tifme.

OfthisConckifionthereisno great doubt, but becaufe
fbmeofthe Anabaptiftsdoe deny the Sacrament of Bap-
tifmetofucceedintheroom, place, and ule of Circumci-
fion, bee plcaied to obfervc how plain the Apoftle makes
it 5 Colojf. 2 . 8,9, 1 o, i 1 , 1 2 . where the Apoftles fcope is op^'"''*
to difTwade the beleeving Chriftians from the rudiments
of the world, and Jewifli Ceremonies, and obfervations
upon this ground, thztvjc are compleat in Chrifi, and that
inhimasinthe head, the Church hath all perfedions, and
becaufe he would take them wholly off from Circumcifion,
the ufe wherof ingagcd them to the ufe of the reft of Jewifli
Ceremonies, he tels them, that in chrijl wee are circumcifcd ^31,5.3.
with a Circumcifion made without hands (^ better circumcifion
then the Jews was J inputting off the body ofth^.finnes of the
fie/1) by the circumcifion of Chrijl . And whereas the ^ewijh tea-
chers would be ready toobjecJl that the receiving of the
inward gt^cQ of Circumcifion, did not make them {o com-
pleat as (^^r^^^w and his feed was, becaufe they alfo had
an outward fenfible figne whereby they might bee far-
ther perfwaded^ comfortedy and confirmed • to this he anfwers
ver, 1 2 .That neither is this priviledge Wanting to Chrijiians
who have as excellent and exprefle a Sacrament of it, being
buried with Chrifi in Baptifme^ the cfted whereof he there
fcts down, and therefore they needed not Circumcifion^

E as

2S A Sermon of the ^apti:{ing »f Infants.

astheirfalft teachers infinuated, thereby dircdly teaching
that our baptifmeisinftead of their circumcifion. And the
Analogy liesbctween two Sacramentall types of the fame
fubftancc {regeneration']tohoi\\^ev;>so.nd Gentiles. And in
truth had not baptifme come in the room of />, the Apoftle
could not have pitched upon a worfe inftance then that of
Circumcifion, which was fo much vrvlued by them, and
was fo great and ufefull a priviledge unto them : Nor had
there been any reafon to have here named baptifm^but that
he meant to (hew baptifm to Chriftians, was now in the
room of circumcifion to the Jews.

That by Gods own exprejfe order ^ Infajnts of rve/i as grown
men'^voere in the time of the ^exves to bee initiated and fealed with
thefigne of Circumcifion : Whether Jewes by nature , or
Profelyces of the Gentiles^one law was for them all,ifthey
receive the Covenant, they and their children receive cir-
cumcifion: andalthoughj as I touched before, thisfigne
was aHualiy applyed only lo the rmles^ yet the females were
w^^4//ycircumcifedinthem, as is apparent both bccaufc
the whole Church of the Jews were called the Circumci-
fion, and becaufe by Gods e:^preffe order, no uncircumci-
fed perfon might eat of the Paffeover, which wee are fure
the women did as well as the men. And whereas fome
who fee which way the ftrength of this Conclufion ben^
deth.do alledge^that though Circumcifion was to bee ap-
plyed to their infants^yet it was not as a feile of the fpiri-
tuall part of the Covenant ot Grace^but as a national badge,
afeale of fome temporalland earthly bleffings and priviled-
ges^as of their right to the Land oiCanaan^&c. and thztJjh-
mael though he was circumcif^ed for fome temporalirefpe^Sy
>en.i7.i? 19) y^^ heewas not thereby brought under the Covenant of
p,2t. * ' grace^which was exprefly faid to be made with Kyibraham^

in relation to Iftacznd his feed.
I '*'^'' I anfwer, there is nothing plainer then that the Covenant

^ where-

A Sermon of the Baptizing of Infants^ :^^

whereof Circumclfion was the figne, was the Covenant »f
Grace • Abraham received Circumcifion 2, figne of the Rom'4»ir«
righccoufncffe of Faith, and the 3^^ir^^ received it not as a
Nation, but as a Church, as a people feparated from the
world, and taken into Covenant with God: It is truein-
cfted, that Circumclfion bound thenfi who received k^ to
conform to that manner of adrainiftration of the Cove-
nant which was carryed, much, by a way ofTemporall
bleffings and punifhments, they being types of fpiriCuali
thingsjbut no man can ever fliew that any were to receive
' the Sacrament of Circumclfion in rcLition to thefe out-
ward things onelj^ or to them ^f 4//, further then they were
adminiftrations of the Covenant of Grace-, fure I am, the
Frofelytis and their children could not be circumcifed in any
relation at all to the temporallbieflings of the Land ofC4-
naan as they were temporall,becaufe notwithftanding their
Circumclfion they were not capable of receiving, or pur-
chafing any inheritance at all in that Land • fojournc
there they might, as other ft rangers alfo did, but the
inheritance of the Land, no, not one foote of it could
ever bee alienated from the fevcrall Tribes to whom it
was diftributed as their pofieffion by the moft High :
Tor all the Land was divided unto twelve Tribes , and Deur.n.8.
they were not any one of them allowed to fell their Lev.25,13.
lands longer then till the year of Jubilee,z:^'z;/>.25.i3.&c.
Yea, I may boldly fay, that their Circumcifion was fo
farrefrom/^^//;j[g-to them the outward good things of the
land,that it occafioned and tyed them to a greater expence
of their temporall bleffings by their long, and frequent, and
chargeable journeys, to worfliip at Hierufalem. And as
for what was alledged concerning Jjhmael, the anfwer is
eafie; God indeed there declares that Ifa^c fhould be the
tyfeof C/^r//?, and that the Covenant of Grace fhould bee
edablijhed^xid continue in his family 5 yet both Ijhmacl and

E 2 the

JO A Sermon of the Baptt^ng of Infants.

the tc^o( Abrahams Family were really tdikcn Into Cove-
nant 5 untill afteiward by Apoftafie they difcovenantcd
themfclveSjas alfo did Efatt afterward, though he were the
Son of /jQ4^,m whofe family God had promifed the Cove-
nant fhould continue.

Fifthly and laftly, the priviledges of heleevcrs under this
laft and beft adminiftration ot the Covenant efgrace^ are nna-
ny wayes tnUrged, made more honerablt^ and comfortable^
then ever they were in the time of the Jews adminiftration^
w^;7jf Scriptures fpeake of the inlargement of their privi-
ledges, not one for the dimimfhing^ox deprefsing^ or extentkt-
tingoH\{Qm •, thatyoke,that hard and coftly way of admi-
niftration, which neither they northeir Fathers wereable
tobeare, is taken off from our flioulders^ our Covenant is
laid to be eftablifhed upon better promifes^tht glory oi theirs
had no glory in refped of ours ^ they were under the bon-
dage of Infants under agejin comparifon oiom freedom^vjt
as well as they are called a holy Nation^ a peculiar feeple^ a
chofen generation^ feparatcd to him from all other people^ to
whom^aswellastothem, belongs the z^^^/;/^/?, the Cove-
nant^ the promt fes •, we as well as they, in joy him to be our
Father^ and with his deareft Son our Lord, are made Co-
heires of the Kingdonk of glory -^ we have all thcfe things
with advantage, notonly intheclearneffe of the admini-
ftration,but in fome fenfe in greater extent to perfons with
usjthereis neither male nor female.
:. Some indeed goe about to (he w, that in fome things the
Jews had greater priviledges then wet have, as th^t^Abra-
ham had the priviledge to be called the lather of the Faith-
fnll'^thzx Chrtfifhofdd bee born ofhisfleJb,Marj had the privi-
ledge to be the Mother of chrtfl, and the whole Nation this
privikdge,f^4f God mil call in their feed agatn^aitex they had
been caft off for unbelief many hundred yeers-, which privi-
ledges/ay they, none of the Gentiles havener can have.

An*

A Sermon of the Bapti^ng of Infants. g i

- Jpfafrd But thefe things have no weight: We are im '^iifip.
quiring for priviledgcs which are branches of the Covenmt
of Graccy which every man who is in Covenant with God,
might expeft from Cedhy verciic of the CovenanCjwere he
a ^evp or a Profeljte^ not for any particular ox peculiar favour
x.oz^^xi\c\A'^xnianyOXVPomanflxfa7?nIy^ ox tribe: All thefe
forementioned things, and many other of the like kinde (as
ihQ Mini fiery of the Tabernacle andTemple^ to belong to one
Tribe, the Kingly of ice to one Family . fuch and fuch men
never to lack a man of their hoVi^cio fi and before God) ^xo-
ceeded indeed from -Fr^^^r4^<?, but were no pares of that
Covenant of grace which God made to Abraham^ and all
\mSeed\ For could every man in Covenant challenge thefe
things at Gods hand^and that by vertuc of the Covenant >
Could every one of them promife to himfelfe that Chrifl
fliould be born of his flefli < Or every one of their women
that (he fliould be the mother of Chrifti* Could everyone
wkom God owned to be in Covenant with him, promife
by vertueof the Covenant^that their children if cafl off by
«;?^^//V/^,fbould after many hundred years be again called
in i We fpeak only of fuch priviledges as were univerfally
and common to all who were in Covenantjfor which by ver-
tue of the Covenant they might re lye upon God •, Ltt any
man ihew out of the Scripture where our priviledges under
the Gofpcljare cut fhort in any of ^^(/^ tnings, and he faith
fomewhat-, and in particular for the cafe in hand, concer-
ning our Infants right to the Covenant of Grace, and the
feale of it,once we are fure the Infant children of all Cove-
;i4;?^er J were within the Coverunt, and the (calealfo be-
longed to them, and by vertue of the Covenant (which is
ftilltheiamej we plead their interefl in it Let any man
(hew when and where this was taken away, when the In-
fant-children of heleevers were expunged out of the Co^tf
mntoi' grace 5 certainly whoever will goe about to de-

E 3 privet

2 i A Sermon of the Bafti^^ifig of Infants.

prive chcm of it^ to cut off fuch a great part of the comfort
of kelecvtng varcnts^mw^ produce cleave ceftimonics, before
they can ptrfwade beleevers to part with either of them, ci-
ther their righc co the Covenant yOxtoxh^ feaU of the Cove-
nant.

For, fivft, their Infants intereft in the Covenant^ next to
the glory of GodjUnd the falvation of their own foules, is
the greateft benefit ot the Covenant ot grace •, eventhis(I
Fay J to have their children belong to Gods Family and
Kingdom, and not to the Devils; Ccrtainly^thegreateft
trealuveof Parents is t'r.eir children,andinthcm thefalva-
tionof their foules: Now how uncomfortable a thing were
this to Parcncsjto take away the very ground of their hope,
for the falvation of their children? and I dare affirm it,that
we have no ground of hope for any particular perfon, un-
till he be brought under the Covenant of Grace, Allchc
world,as I have formerly toiiched,is divided into two king-
^(?;»^55the Kingdom of Chrift, which is the Church- and
the kingdom of Satan, which is the reft of the World •
now io long as any perfon is vifibly a Member of the kingdom
ofC^n/, wehave nocaufe to doubt their ^/^J?/^i^and/i/i/4-
tton^\mi\\ they vilibly (hew the contrary ^although we know
that there are fome reprobate among them • fo on the other
iide, although we know Chrift hath many of his Ele6l to
be gathered out of the Devils kingdom, yet we have no
caufe or ground to hope that any particular perfon is any
other :hQnd,reprobatey being a vifible profcfled member of
Satans kingdom,untillhec give hope to the contrary; now
what a moft uncomf->rtable abridgement were this of the
Covenant of Or ace ^ thus apparently to cutoff the Seedo£
Beleevers from their vifible right in the Church of
Chrifl, and to^put them in the vifible kingdome of
5atan i

And, Secondly, as really unwilling muft they look to

find

A Sermon of the Baptizwg of Infants, 53

find ParentSj to part with their childrensrtght to the Stde
of the Covenant ^ this their right to the Covenant being
all the ground of hope that heleeving Parents Q2iVi\\2L\^i\\zi
their Infants who die in their Infancy,r:rc faved/ather then
the Infants oiTufkes^ had need beejealed^li they live nntill
they are grown men, and give other fignesof srace^ they
may conceive good hopes of them, though they were not
fealed with a Sacranfientali feale : This therefore is appa-
rent, that the cutting offourpriviledges & comforts in the(e
two were a great abridgment of the priviledges of the new
Covenant,and would put the Seed of Abrahams faith into a
farrcworfe condition in regard of their pofterity, then the
Seed of his flcfti were in ; And the Jews in A^.2. 39. if
thisDodrine had been preached to them, might have re-
plycd unto St. Pertfr5when he exhorted them to be baptized
for their childrensgood-^Nay^Peter^ even therefore wq will not
be baptized, for as yet we are fine our Children are in Co-
venant with God^and reckoned to his family •, but if we re-
ceive your new way, our children muft be counted to the
kingdom of the DeviU^ and io might they in Co /off. 2. when
P4«/ told ^/;^w they need not be circumcifed, becaiife Bap-
tifm came in the room of it^ f^^^ might have replycd, that
though they need not be circumcifed themfelves^ yet they
would ftill circumcife their chi/dr en, bccaufe Baptifm was
not to be applyedto them according to thcle mens Do-
ctrine,

Upon thefe five Conclufions, i . That the Covenant of
grace is always the fame. 2. That the Infants ofthofein
Covenant, are always reckoned Covenanters with their
Parents. 3. Th^it our Baptifm fucceeds in the room and
ufc of their Circumcifion. 4. That by Gods expreiTe or-
der, their Infants were to be Circumcifed; as it was a feale
of the Covenant. And 5. that our priviledges for our
felvesandour Children are at leaft as hoiaourable, large,

and

54 ^ Sermon of the Bapti^ftg of Infants.

andcomfortableastheirswere-, The Conclufion follows
uadeniably^thac therefore the Infants of beleeving parents are
tehee baftiz^ed,

Againft this Argument: the Anabaptifts objed many
things. They fay the Covenant was not the fame - fome
of them fay^the children of the ^etves were not under the
Covenant m relation to fpirituall things: They fay circtmci-
[ion and haptifm^cvvcd not for the fame ends and ufes: They
fay Circumcifion was adminiftred as a Natlonail badge^
and properly /^4/^iccmporall bleffings.They fay,whatevcr
priviledges Infants oiBeleevers had hefere Chrifts time^thcy
have now none at all^ and many fuch like things: All which
I have fo fully cleared in this former Difcourle, that I fup-
poielneednotaddeany more^ the main and only Obje-
ftion remaining, which hath any colour of weight in it, is
this.
"There is no command^ no expre^e institution^ or clear exam-
^ O^/ea. j^^ ^^ ^11 ^fj^ jy^^ Te (lament efbaptiZinz of Infants : And in the

We want a ^ i • -n • t J -' ' ^ '^ i i j i

command and adminiltration or Sacraments, we are not to be led by our
example. Q^vn rcafon, or grounds of leeming probability, but by the
expreffe order ot Chri(l,and no other wife.
^nfrv. If by inftitution, command and example, they mean

bet°noL^^relre ^^ exfre(fe f)UabicaIl Command^ (^c. I grant that in fo many
command or ^ words it is not f ound in the N€.w Teftament*^ no expre(J'e com-
cxampie-. mand in the New Teftament^ that they fliould be baptized 5
no expreffe example where Children were baptized •, but I
alfoadde, that I deny the coafequence, ihuK in fo many
words it be not commanded in the New Teftamentjit ought
]!^c^jfl-ary."°' "^^ ^^ be done,this is not true divinity, that Chriftians are
not tycd to obfervc that , which is not exprefly and info
many words fet down in the New Teftament -, there is
qocxprefferevivingoftheLaws concerning the forbidden
degrees of marriage in the New Teftament, except of not
having a mans fathers Wife, i Cor. 8. no cxpreflc Law a-

gainlt

A Sermon of the Bdftiz^ing of Infants. * j

gaifift Polygamy ,no expreflc command forthe celebration
of a weekly Sabbath-,are therfore Chriftians free in al thefti
cafes ? Yea, in the Point of Sacraments there is no exfrejfe
command^ no example in all the New Tcftament, where
Women received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper;
there is no ^x/>r^/Je command that the children oi Seleevers
when they are grown, fliould bee injlru^edand baptized,
though inftruded by their Parents 5 expreflfe command '
there is,that they fhould teach the Heathemnd thc^ewes
and make them Difciples, and then baptize them, but no
command that the children of thofe that arc Beleevers
fliould be taught and baptized when they are grown men^
nor any example where ever that was done -, will any man
therefore fay ,thatchriftian i;vomemi:t not to be partakers of
the Lords Supper^ nor the children oHeleevers when grown
men be hapti'{ed? I think none will be fo abfurd as to affirm
irjf it be iaid^though thefe things be not exprefly 2ind inter-
minis in the New Teftament, yet they are there vertuafly, Yet by good
^wdhy undeniabk confequence : Iconfeffeitis true, fo have confcqueHce
we vertually y^nd by mdeniable confequence hfficient evidence "^^^^^^^^^ ^°"^
forthe baptizing of children,both^#ww4;;^i and examples-^ kothinthc*
Voi'fivtt^^QhzvcGodscommaridto {^braham^ as he was the ^'^"^"lan^i'gi-
Father of all Covenanters, that hee fhmld feale his children I^;Vwhfchrc*
with the feale ef the Covenant, Now this truth all our Di- cherhus.
vines defend againft thePapifts^ that 4// Gods commands
and inftitutions about the Sacraments of the fem^ binde us
as much as they did them^ in all things which belong to.
the fuhftance of the Covenant, and were not acctdentaS
unto them : as becaufe circumcifion is called a feale of the
Covenant^ therefore our Sacraments are feales of the Cove-
mm: becaufe circumcifion might be adminiftred but once
being the feale of initiation •, therefore baptifm being al-
fo the feale of initiation, isalfo to be adminiftred but (?w^
But that circumcifion was to be adminiftred upon the eightk

F day

^ A Sermon ofth^S&ft^tf^g of Infants.

dA*j onelj^vj^iS an accidentaU thing, and therefore bindes not
us, thcJcwi(hP/jjf^tfx'erbeingiobe^^4r/)i repeated, bindes
us to have a rf/>^f/>/^/^of the Sacrament of the Lordi Suffer j
which came in roomc of it, becaufc this belongs to the lub-
ftanceof the Covenant, both of them being Sacraments
fQt fpirituati fjour/jhmentf grfiwph 'a.nd comintiance in the Co-
venant ^ (as the o:hcr was for birth and entrance) but that
their Paireover was to be eaten in an Evening, and upon
mefet Evemnginthc ys^vc^vjeis accidemalltand fo binds not
us» Thelikeinftancelgivein our Chnflian Sabb^hi the
fourth Commandement binds :^i5 for the fuh^mce of it as
muchasever it bound the ^zms \^ There God once for all
feparated one day of feven to be facred to himfelfe, and all
the world flood bound in all ages to give unto God that one
(iiy of feven^which fliould be of his own choofing. Now
«;;r///Chrifts tiaie,God chofe the Ufi day of the feven to be
his Sabbath, and having by the death and refmrelfion oi
our Lord Jelus,put an end to the Saturday Sabbath,and fur-
rogated the firfl day of the week inftead thereof to be the
Lords day, we need no new Commandment for the keep-
ing of the Lords dajy being tyed by the fourth Command-
ment to keep that day of feven which the Lord fhould
choofejthe Lord having chofen f^^, the fourth Command-
ment binds us to this^z^ it did the ^ews to the former : f o in
the like manner,! fay,in the Sacrament of Baptifm.

When God made the Covenant wdth C^braham, and
promifed for his part to be the God of him and his feed,
what God promifed to Abraham^ we claime our part in
i\ as the children of Abraham^ and what God required
on Abrahams paxt for t\itfuhftance of obedience, we all ftand
charged with ^ as well as if ^//^^^/^^ wee as ^^r4^/iw are
tyed tOibeleenkj to lovexht Lord with all our heart, to have
CUJsh^airtxirjcumciied, to walk before God in uprightnefle,;
toviQftrudfc ©UE Childreni and bring them up for (God

and

A Sermm of the BJpti&kg of Infants. \

and not for our felves, nor for the Devill, to teach them
toworfliip God according to his revealed will, to triin
them up under the Ordinances and itiftitutions of Gods •
own appointment: Allthefe diihgs Gods Command to
AhrAham c^x^'^^ts upon ^//the Children of the Covenant
though there were no exfrei^e reviving th^k Commands in
any partot the- Ne^v Tejlamcnt^ and therefore conftquently
that command of God to Abraham which bound his feed of
the f'cws^ to train up their children in that manner of wor-
fhip which was then in force,binds the feed oiAbraham^ narv
to train up their children in conformity to fuch Ordinances
as ;;i>m are in force.

And the fame command which injoyned ^^r4^4w^ to
feaU his children with the/^^/^of the Covenanc3injoynes us
as flrongly to feale ours with the feale of the Covenant, and
thatcommandof God which exprejji/y bound Abraham to
fiale his with the fign oicircumcijjon^ which was the Sacra-
ment then in force, fro tempore^ doth vertmlly binde us to
y^4/^ ours with the fign of ^4pf//fe,which is the Sacrament
/?<9«7inforce^andfucceedsintheroom of the other by his
Q^^iyjppointment,

fff^feis one command by r/^^r^ confcquence, another
you (hall finde, CM at. 2 8 . where our Saviour bids them Goe aslj o^ene
and teach all Nations yB apt i zing them in the Name oftheFa-^ and lxpiaine<
ther^ and of the Sonne^ and of the Holy Ghoji: Where you >.
have two things ; Firft, What they mreto^doe-^ Secondly, I
To whom they were to doe it. They were to preach and teach
all things which hee had commanded them^ that is^ they were v,
to preach the whole Gofiel^ Mark, 16. 15. The whole -
Covenant of Grace, containing all the promifes^whereof '

ihisisone, viz,. ThatGodwillbectbeGodofbeleevers^andof
their feedy that the feed of beleevers are takers into Covenant
with their Barents. this is a part of the Gofpel preached unto
Abraham^ and they were to Baptize them, that is, to ad-
^^'' ' F a minifler

|8 ASirmnoftheBafti^ngoflnfants.

iniflifterbaptifinasa Sealeoith^ Covenanc to 4// who re-
ceived the Covenant. Secondly, wee have the ferfonsto
tvhomthty v^txtlo 6ott\\\s,all Nations^ whereas before the
Church was tyed to one Nation, om Nation onely were
Difciples, now their Commiffion was extended to make
^iSf Nations Difciplcs, every Nation which fhould receive
the -F^i^^jfliiould bee to him now, as the peculiar Nation
of the ^'cms had been in time paft. In a wovd^Natiom
here are oppofed to the one Natio^hchxc. Now we know
when that (?;^^ Nation of the ^ewes^txt made Ditciplcs,
and circumcifcd, their Infants were made Dirciples,(madc
to belong to Gods Schooie ) and circumcifed withthcna,
when that Nation was made Difciples in Abrahams
loyncs, and circumcifed , their feed alfo was the fame
when that Nation was taken out of Egypt, and aBmlly
made Dilciples, their children were alfo with them^ and
wee know that in every Nation the Children make a great
part of the Nation 5 and are alwayes included under every
adrainiftration to the Nation, whether promifcs or
threatnings, priviledges or burthens. Mercies or Judge-
ments, unleuc they bee excepted ; fo are they in Cities,
in Families^it being the way of the Scripture,when fpeaking
indepriitel'j oidkVto^Xty Nation, City, or Family, to bee
either faved or damned, to receive mercies or punifhments,
cxpreflyto except i;?/^;;^/'^ when they are to be excepted,
as wee fee in the judgement that befell Ifrad in the Wilder-
neifc, when all that rebellious Company that came out of
Bgjft^ was to perifli by Gods righteous doom, their little
ones were exprcfly excepted. Numb. 14. 31. and in the
Covenant <i^»/i/^)entred into by the body of the Nation,
Neh.ioXi is exprcfly limited to them who had knowledge
andunderftandmg. And the Difciples who received this
Commiffion knew well, that in all Gods former admini-
ftrations, when any Parents were made Difciples, their

Mldrcn

A Sermon oftheBapti^ngof Infants, gji

ihildren were taken in with them to appcrtainc to the fame
ichoole, and therefore it behooved the Lord to give them
zcaution for the leaving out of Infants in his new admini-
ftration, that they might know his minde^had he intended
to have them left out, which that ever he did in v/ord or
deedjCannot be found in the Scriptures. ^

If it be faidjthey are not capable of being Dif ciples : ^>^^'

I anfwer,even as capable as the Infants of the Jews, and ^^^'
Profelytes were, when they were made Difciples: and be-
fidc, they are devoted to be Difciples , being to be trained
up by the Parents ^"who are from their infancy to teach them
the knowledge of Chrift, and at the prefenr, they are ca-
pable of his oxvne teaching : and fure I am, in Chrifts own
diale(ft,to belongto Chrifi^ and to be a Bifctfle of Chrift^or to Matth. i a42^
bear f)&^/^^w^ofChrift>is all one^ and that fuch Infants doe Matal;^*'
belong to Chriftjand beare the name of Qirift,! havcfuffi-
ciently proved already.

And I defire it may be ferioufly weighed whether that cx-
preffion,-4tJ.io.i5. Nowtherefore why tempt ye God to
put a yoke upon the necks of the Dfciples jdo not necefliratc
uSjtogive the name oiDifctfles to Infants.^s wcl as lo grown
men.tov I reafon thus. All they upon whofe necks thofe falfe
. Teachers would have put the yoke of circumcifion are cal-
led D//r///ri,& to be called Difciples: bu: they would have
put the yoke of circumcifion upon Infants, as well z.^ grown
men: thcrfore Infants as well as grown men are called Dif-
ciples and to be called fo.The major is undeniablCjthc^w/;;^/
I prove thus: They who prelfed circumcifion to be in force,
according to the manner ofMofes Law, and would put it upon
their necks after the manner of Mofes his Law, they would put
it upon Infants of thofe who were in Covenant with God,
as well as upon the necks of thofe who were grown men,
for fo Mofes Law required: but theft falfc teachers prcffcd
circumcifion to be j& inforce, as is apparent, Aif^ ij-i.

F J Ano-

i|0 A Sermon of theBafti%tn^ of Infants.

Another command by good confequence for the bapti-
zing of Infants, you (hall finde in that forementioned place
where the Apoftle exhorted them to repent & be baptized^ '
iLC.Buaufe ihtfremife xv(vs made to them and to theirchildrfn^
which^as I llewcdyou, clearely proves that the Children
of fuch vvhobeleeveand are baptized, arc taken intoCo-
venantjandthereforeby good confequence they alfo are to
receive the fcale of the Covenant. The Text not onely
(liewing that they are within the Covenant, but alfo chat a
right to Baptifme is a confequence of being within the Cove-
nant. Thus for Commands: for Examples3though there
fliouldbenone, there is no great argument in It, when the
rule is fo plain,yec we have exampl es enough jby good con-
fequence, for you fliall finde the Gofpel cook place,juft as
the oldadminiftration^by bringingin whole families together-^
when Abraham^d.% taken in, his whole Family was taken in
with him 5 when any of the Gentiles turned Profelytes, or-
dinarily their Familes came in with them: fo in this new
Adminiftration, ufmll'j ifthe>/4//er of the Floufe turned
Chriftian,his \N\\Q\t family came in and Were baptized with
him •, The whole houfehold of Cornelms^i\\^ firft converted
Gentile,/^^..! i .i4.the houfehold of Stcfhanm^, the houfc- .
hold of Arifhbulm • the houfehold of karcifftu*^ the houfe-
hold oi Ljdia • the houfehold of the G4^/^r-,thefe are exam-
ples not to be contemned.

And whereas fomeobjeftagaind this Argumenr, taken
from whole Families, that the argument is at leaft as ftrong
toprove that the Jewifli Infants did eat the Pafftover, bc-
caufe not only leverall Families mighc,but did, and that by
Gods appointment,eat the PafTeover.
.1: I Anf wer, by denying the confeq -ence, the argument is
not fo ftrongjfor the one as for thcother, becaufe ho other
Scripture fhcws that the PafTeover doth belong to Infants 5
but we have other plain Scriptures proving that Baptifme

is

A Sermm of the Bapti^ng of hfmts. ^X

is in the room of Circumcifion, which belongs therefore
to InfantSjOS well as grown men; if any can inftancc of any
families of Gentiles who were circumcifcd, the confcqucnce
were good. Therefore Infarcts were^\i there were any Infants,
becaufe other Scriptures (hew that circumcifion belongs to
Infants as well as grown menjbuc in this cafe the argunient
is not good. |

So much for my firft and main Argument, they are fcede- !

r^^/jand therefore muft ht [ignati ^th^y arc under the Cove-
nant of Grace^and therefore are to be figned with the ftalc
of admittancelnto the Covenant.

Th^i^coni hxgum^nx.^to\^hom\hQ inwArdgrace oi Baf^ x Argument
tlfm doth belongjto them belongs the outward fign^thcy ought
tohavethej^g-;?^, who have the ^/'/3f^/j^;^//y^^-, xht earthly
/^; of the Sacrament "muft begrantedto them who have
the^^4'z;^/r/Jf^ar^♦butthe 7;?/i;?^^of beleevers, even while
they are Infants are made partakers of the in warcj Grace of
•Baptifme, of the heavenly and fpiricuall part, as well as
grown men .• therefore they may , and ought to receive the
outward fign of Baptlfm.

• Thcw/i/tfrPropofition, th2Xtheyrvhoare mAdefarikkers'of
the inward grace ymA-j not bee debarred of the out w^ird fign, is i,/ii^*^^* ^
undeniable, it is Peters argument^ A6t. i o. Can any mm for-
bid water that thefe fhould not bee kipti^d^ who have received
the Holy Ghoji 04 well os wee? and again, A^. w.Por as much
as God gave them the like gifts as hee did mto m^ what wai I
that Icoddwithfland God? And this is fo clear,that the moft
learned of the Anabaptifts doe readily grant, that if they
knew any Infants to have received the inward grace, ihey
durft not denythem the outward fign, and-that\the ^^^riS- ^^''•^°'
cular Infants,whom Chrift took up in his Armes and^lef-
led, might have been bapti!zpd. And for the iffumptibn or
minor ^ That the Infants of Beleevers^ even while they are In-
fantSydo receive the inward grace; as well its gronhf mjtn^ fe'as

plain.

4» A Sermon of the Bapii^ng eflnfmts,

plaitic, not only by that {pecch of the Apoftle,who faith,
they are holy^ but our Saviour faich cxpreffdy, Mari. lo.
That to fuch belongs the kingdam of God^ as well as to grown
men: And whereas fomc would evade it,by faying that the
Text faith not^ tothe^n belongs the Kingdom ofGod,but
of [uch is the Kingdome of Heaven, Tjni-miy^ oi fuch like^
that is, fuch as are graced with fueh like qualities^ who arc
humble Viid meek, as children are, and that Luk. i8. is pa-
rallel! to this,in the meaning of it, Whofoe'ver doth not receive
the Kingdome of Heaven a$ a little childe^ hee fhall not enter
therein.

But I anfwer, chough it be true that in other places this is
(?;?r ufe that Chvift makes of an Inhnts age and condition,
to fliewthatfuch as receive the Kingdom of Heaven, mull
bequalifycd with humility, &c. like unto children: yet
here it cannot be his meaning,bccau{c his argument is^ f^ffer
them to come to mee and forbid them not^ bee atifeof fuch is the
Kingdome of God^ that is, my Church and Kingdom is made
up of thefe as well as of others. This was the very caufe
why the Difciples rebuked thofe who brought the children
to Chrift, becaule they were Ittle^ not ft to bee infiruFied^
andthereforenot fit that Chrift (hould be troubled about
them •, this Chrift rebukes in them, and tcls them that the '
tof/^-^qyir of children , is no argument why they fliouldbc
kept from him : Suffer them^ faid he, to come ^ and forbid them
not ^ for of fuch is the Kingdome of God: andwhatkindeof
w '^-^\ argument had this been, iftheTextiliouldbe interpreted
> '[■ M as the(c men would have it. Suffer little children to come unto
me, ihzt I m^y touch them^ take them up in mine armesy fut
• my hands upon them^ and bleffe them^ becaufe the Kingdom
of God belongs to them,who have fuch like qualities,who
refemble children in fome feleft properties ? By the very
fame ground,ifany had brought doves ^ znd Jheepe to Chrift,
to f tit his bands ufon them^ andbleffe them^ the Difciples had

been

:k

li

A Sermon of the Bapti&hg of Infants. 43

been liable to the fame reproofey becaufe effuch is the King*
domof God/uch as are partakers of the Kingdom of Goa^
muft be indued with fuch like properties.

Befide, what one thing can be named belonging to the ^^t^ 3-^
initiation, and being of a Chriftian, whereof Baptifmeis a Gai!3!27!
feale^which Infants are not capable of^as well ^s grown men^ Titus :^.<^,
they are capable of receiving the Holy Ghoft^ of union ^\xh^'^^^'^*^*
ChuHyOf ad0ption^o?forgive}7e(fe oiftns, of regeneration^ of
everlafltng life^ all which things are fignifyed and fealed in
the Sacrament ofbaptifmrand it \^ further confiderable,that
in the working of that in ward gracepf which baptifm is the
fign and teaUall who partake of that grace,are bwtmeerepa'
tienPSyXnA contribute no more to it, then a chtlde doth to its
own begettirigjand therefore Infants as fit Subjedis to have
it wrought in them as grown men.and the moft grown men
are in no more fitnefle to receive this grace when it is given
them, in [rclped either of ^iny faith or repentance^ which
they jv^/^have,then a very little childe, it being the primary
intention of the Covenant of Graccjin its firft work^to (hew
what Free Grace can and will do to miferable nothing, to
cut miferable man off from the wilde Olive, and grafFe him
into the true Olive, to take arvay the heart of ftone^ to create in
them a heart of flefb^ to forgive their iniquities y to love them
freely^ what doth the moft grown man in any of thefe,more
then an Infant may do < being onljpa(sive in them all ^ and
of thisy?r/? grace is the Sacrament of baptifm properly afeal:
and wiio ever will deny, that Infants are capable of the{e
things as well as grown men-^ muft deny that any Infants dy-
ing in their Infancy are faved by Chrift.

Againft this argument feverall things are objc(5i:ed:which
I (ball indevour to remove out of the way.

Firft, It is faid, that although Infants are capable of OhjeS.i
thefe things, and they no doubt arc by Chrift wrought in
many Infants, yet may not we baptize them, bccaufc^ ac-

G cording

A^ ASermonoftheBapi'^ngeflnfams.

cording to the Scripture pattern, both oi chri (Is command,
c>/<i/.^8an[us/>/?/f«^/^»of Baptifm, where this was in-
joyned -, and ^ohn the Baptift,Ghrifts Difciples^and Apo-
ftles. They alwayes taught and made them Dilciples by
teachingjbefore they baptized any.
infip. I anfwer, Firft,that of Matth. 28. is not the inflitmon of

Baptilm^it was inftituted long before, to be the Scale of the
Covenant^ it is only an inlargemenc of their Commiflion,
whereas before they were to goe emly to the left Jheepe of the
hotife oflfrael^now they were to gotmto all the worlds And be-
fide, it.is no where faidj thaf^ none mre bapti'{ed^ but fiich as
v^cvtfirfi taught, and what realon wee have to beleevc the
contrary jyou have before leen.

Secondly, It is faid indeed, that they taught and baptiz-
ed, and no exprefle mention made of any other .• but the
reafon is plain^ there was anew Church to be conftitutedj,
all the Jews who fhould receive Chrift, were to come unr
dQX another admintftration^ and their Infants were to come in
only in their rights and the Heathen Nations who were to
be converted to Chrift^ were yet wholly without the Co-
venant of Grace, and their children could have no right
untill themfclves were brought in ., and therefore no mar-
vaile, though both ^ohn^ and Chrifts Difciples, and Apo-
ftlcs,did teach before they baptized, bccaufc then no other
were capable of baptifm ; but when once themfelves were
inftruded and baptized, then their children were capable of ,
it, by vcrtue of the Covenant. If any in the Jewifli Church
had received Commiflion, to go and make other Cities,
Profeljtes lothtvR^ their Commiflion muft have run thus.
Go teach and circumcife, would it therefore have followed,
that none might bee circumcifedj but fuch as were firft
taught ?
€hje^.2* But it is exprefly faid, That hec that heleeves and is hapti:^
ed,Jhall iee/dved'^ Faith in Chrifi is the Condition, upon

which

A SerfnonoftheBdftizingoflnfams. 4.j5

which men may be baptized: and this is the mo^cmmoa
objedion among the Ambaptifts : Unheleevers may not he
baptiz^ed^ chidrenareunbekevers, therefore they r»dy not bee
baptized. We have/ay they, cleare cvidence,that Faith ir
acondicionrequiredinthofethatarc to be baptized, noe-
vidcnce of 4/?j'pf/'^/ condition that makes them capable of
Baptifm. Others of them adde, that under an affirmative
commandjthe negative is to bee included, beleeving is the
affirmative^unbeleeving is the negative,therefore where bc-
lecvers are commanded to bee baptized, unbeleevers are
forbidden to be baptized .• this objection they much glory
inland fome of them dare all the world to anfwer it.

lAnfwerfirft, but ifthis argument have any ftrength at -^'
all againft the Baptiz,ing of Infants, it hath much more
ftrength againft the/i/i/^f/^;^ of Infants-, it is Qiid exprejiy
he that be lee vet h ^and is baptil^edjhall befvved • but he that be-
leeveth not, fhallbee damned: there ye have both the nega-
tive and affirmative fet down 5 Hee that beleeves ihall
bee f aved, hee that beleeves not Ihall bee damned •, now
I frame their own Argument thus, againft thcfahation
of Infants, Allunbeleeversfhall bee damned^all Infants are un-
heleevers^ therefore they Jhall bee damned'^ now look at what
doore they will goe out, for x\\t Jalvation of infants, at the
fame will we go out, for the ^4^f/^/>^^ of infants-, how ever
they will evade the one^^t fhall much more ftrongiy evade
the other -^ if they fay this Text is meant of grown men^ of
the way which God takes for the falvation of grown men,
Infants arc faved another way, upon other conditions 5 the
fame lay we of infants baptifm,the Text means of the con-
dition of baptizing of grown men,infants arc baptized'up-
on other conditions?, if they fay, infants though they can-
not have 4<5?«4//Faith,they may have virtmll Faith, Faith
inthQfeedandroote , the fame fay we-, if they fay, though
Infants have not Faith, yet they may have that which is

G 2 And'

^ A Sermon of the Bapu:{jng $f Infmts.

AndogoHs to faith, the fame fay we, they have fomwhac
which hath ii;?4A?^/^ to faich^and as effcftuall to make them
capable of baptilm^as of falvation.

Secondly, I anfwer, it is no where jaid unhehcvers^ ("or
x^\!titi Ndn'htUever5\X'!k\o\\\^h^{'^\^)m£i'j not bee bapized^
it is faid indeed, Heethit hekeveth and is bapti'\edy fhall hel
ftved •, and it is faid, That he that hekeveth with all his heart
ma) be baptized 5 it is no where faid, that he that heleevetb
mt^may not be bafti^d : Therefore I deny the confeqnence,
if all beleevers muft be baptized^then no unbeUevers^ or non^
beleevers may be baptized •, thcfe two are not here intended
by way of oppofitionjChrift excludes Infants neither from
baptifm,nor from falvation for want of Faith , but pojltive
unhleevers^^nd fuch as refufe the Gofpel he excludes from
both : The ftonc upon which thefe men ftumble, is the
ignorance in the oppofition in the Scripture they bring,
which is not between Beleevers^ and their Children, but
between them, and unbeleeving and profane perfons^ who
arc (hut from the Lords Covenant, Baptifm^ and Salva-
Hon.

Butfuppofe they arc capable of the inward grace of bap-
tifme, and that God doth effectually work it in fome of the
Infants oi beleevers^ is that iufficient warrant for us to bap-
tize 4// the Infants o( Beleevers'^ If we knew in what Infants
the Lord did work ^^/y, we might baptize /^/'^/^ Infants, fay
jomeofthcm, but that he doth not make known to us, we
cannot know of any one Infant by any ordinary way of
knowIedge,thatthey are inwardly baptized with the Holy
Ghoft^and therefore we may not baptize any of them, but
wait to fee when and in whci^i God will work the thing fig-
mfyed^^nd then apply the fign to them.
Anfrr, Anfwer. Our knowledge that God hath effedually

wrought the thing fignifyed,is not the condition upon which
we are to apply the figne^ God no where requires that we

fhould

A Sermon of the Baptjzif^g of Irsfants. ^ -.

fliould Icnow that they are inwardly and certainly coiiver-
ted, whom we admit to the Sacrament of BaptUm^ the A-
poftlcs thcmfelves were not required to know this of thofe
whom thej baptizedjif they were, they finned in baptizing
Simen Magus ^ Alexnndery Bjmensus^ Ananm and Safhira^
with others:we are indeed required to know that they have
in them ^torW/>/^;^ which muft warrant us to adminijler
thefign^noi that which makes thtm-pc(feft of the thing figmji^
ed'^ fallible conjectures 2iXtnottoht QUI m\t\n adminiftring
of Sacraments,either to Infants or grown men, but a known
rule of the word^ out of which rule we muft be able to make
up fuch a judgement, that our adminiftration may be of
faith:, ^s well as out of charity : In baptizing of grown
men, the Apofllesand Miniftersof Chrift adminiftred the
figne, not becauiethey conjcEnred th^i the parties were in-
wardly fandifyed, but becaufe they made that profe(?io^ of
faith and holinefTe of which they wcrefure^ that whoever
had the thing in truth, were received by Chrift into ir^rpard
Communion with himfelf, and that whotvtxthm made it ^
that Chrift would have them received into the communion i
of his Church,though pofBbly for want of the inward work
they were never received into the inward communion with
Jefus Chrift:indeed when fuch a confeflion was m.ade,chri- .
ftian charity v/hich always hopeth the beft, and thinketh no
evill, bound them to receive them, and think of them, and
converfe with them,as with men in whom theinward work
was wrought, untill they gave fignes to the contrary-, but
this then* (r/?4m)> , or charitable conjedure was not the
ground of their 4i?»/m>^ them to Che Ordinance, but th^
profeflion and confeflion of the party, made according to
the WordjWhich they were bound to r^/ in ^ yea, Igreat-
ly queftionjWhether in cafe ?cter or pW could by the fpirit
of revelation have known that Ananias ox. AlexandSif would
have proved no better then hypocrites,whether they either

G 3 would..

A Sermon of the Bapti^ng oflnfaniY.

would,or ought to have rcfufcd them from Baptif m, wliUft
they made that fubltkefrifepon and confejsion^ upon which
others were admitted who in the event proved no better
then thofe were. So that I conclude : not our knowledge of
thdv inward San^if cation^ is reqnifite to the admitting of
any tobaptifm, but our knowledge of the will of Chrifty that
fuchwhoareinfuchandfuch condition, fhould by us be
received into the communion of the Church:and in this the
rule to dircd our knowledge, is as plain for Infant s^ as for
grown men^ the rule having been always thk^ '\\\2X grown
men J who were fir angers f om the Covenant of G od^'CLnhclcQ'
vers, Pagans,Heathens5(hould upon their being infiruBed^
and upon profejsion of their Faith, and promife to walk accor-
ding to the rule of the Covenant '^ be received and added
to the Church, and made partakers of the fcale of their en-
trance, and their Infants to come in with them . both forts
upon their admiffion to be charitably hoped of, untiil they
give fignes to the contrary , charity being bound from
thinking of evill of them, not tyed to conclude certainly
of any of them^becaufcthey ought to know that in all agts,
all are not Ifrael who are of Ifraely and that many are called J?iit
few are ehofen.
. But all who enter into Covenant, and receive the feale of
the Covenant, mull: H'lpulate for their parts , as well as God
doth for his, they muft indent with God to perform the
beleevers part of the Covenant, as well as God doth to
perform his part^ as even this Text, i Pet. 3, requires. That
Baptifm which faves us muft have theanfwer of a good con-
fcience to God : now although it be granted, that Infants
are capable ofreceiving the /r/? grace, if God be plealed
to work it in them • yet what anfwer of a good confcience
can there be from Infants unto God ? they having not the
u(e of Rcafon , and not knowing what the Covenant
means*?

Anfw.

A Sermon of the BapiT^ng of Infants, £}

Anfw. The Infants ofchej^ejvj' were as much tyed as the jinfw.
Infants oi heleevers under the Gofpcl, every one who was
circumcifed was bound t& keep the Law.GaL^. and thc(e men
profefle thaxlfraelitijh Infants were mthin the old Covenant^
when yet they knew not what it mcantj nor could have the
fame ufeof it with their Parents and others of aiicrction.
Look what anfwer they will make for r}atJevos infants, if
true, will abundantly latisfie for the Infant;s oibeleevers un-
der the Gofpel. ^ V

Secondly, God feales to them prcfently, their name Is'
put into xhcdeed^ and when they come to years of dilcrcti- ^
Gnjto be adulti^xhtn in their own perfons they ftand obliged
to Che performance of it • in the mean time ^efu^ Chrijt^ Hcb.7,23;
who is the furety of the Covenant, and the iurcty of ail the
Covenanters, is pleaftd to be their furety -, we know when
ieverall parties ftand obliged in the fame bond, they may
feale at Ieverall times, and yet be in force afterward toge-
ther^ or even a childe lealing in infancy, may agnize and re-
cogni^ that {ealing,w hen they come to years of diicretion 5
if then they will renounce it, as done when they under-
ftoodnot,thcy may free themfelvcs iftheypkaie, if they
finde the former ad an inconvenience or burden to them: fo
is it here,God of his infinite mercy is plealcd to Icaleto In-
fants while they are fuch, and accepts ot fuch a feale on
their parts, as they are able to give in their Infant age, ex-
pe(5ling a further ratification on their part, when they are
come to riper years, in the mean time affording them the ^

favourandpriviledgcof beingin Covenant with him, of \

being reckoned unto his kingdom and family, rather then
of the Devils 5 if when they are grown raef i they refui^r to
ftand to this Covenant,there is no hurt done on Gods part,
let them ferve another God, and take their lot tor tiaieto
come.

But what benefit comes to children by y^^^kin^e of lea- Olji^U 5.

ling

50 A Sermon of the Boffti^ng ef Infants.

ling as this IS /* itfeemsthen (faychcy) byyourowncon-
feffion, that this isbut 3. cof^difionali fealing on Gods parr,
^vi^that they own ir,and racifie it when they come to age,
and if they then refiife to ftand to it, all is then nuUifyed.,
were it not therefore better to defer it to their years of dif-
cretion^to fee whether they wilk/&^;^ make it their own vo-
luntary ad,yea3 or no r*
jfmr* Anfw. I. This objedion lay as ftrongly againft Gods
wifdome in requiring the -"f^ewes Infants, even in their la-
fancy thus to ieale •, and therefore argues no great wif-
dom or modefty in men,who would thus reafon with God
about his adminiftrations. 2. God hath other ends and ufes
ofapplying the feale of the Covenant to them who arc in
Covenant with him, then their ^r^/^^^ gain, it's a Homage^
Worjhtpy and Honour to himkliy and it behoves us evenin
that reipedj/^ fulfill all righteou[ne(je : when Chri(i rv/ts bap-
tf\ed and drcumcifcd , he was unfit for the Ordinance,
through his perfe5iion^ as Children through their irn-
ferfe^ien^ being as much above thern^^%Cmdxm^t^ below
them.

3. I Anfwer ^ The benefit and fruit of it at the prefent is
very much, both to the Parents and to the children •, to the
Parents firft^whilft God doth hereby honour them to have
their children counted to his Church, to his Kingdom, and
Family,to be under his wing and grace^whileft all the other
Infantsinthe world have their vifible (landing under the
Prince, and in the kingdom or darkne{re,and confcquently
whileft others have no hope of their childrens fpiritual wel-
fare, uncill they be called out of that condition, thefe need
not have any doubt of their childrens welfare, if they dye
in their /^s^/^/^j', nor if they live untill they (hewfignesto
the contrary : God having both reckoned thorn wnto his peo-
ple, and given them all the meanes of fahation^ which^a//^-

/^i^^j age is capable of.

Second-

A Sermon oftht Bapizlngoflnfints. 51

Secondly, here is much privilcdgeand benefit tothe chit

I dren,when as (befidc whac inward lecret work Godis.plca*-

fedco work in chem)chey being Members of the Church

of Chrift have their fliarein the Gommunion of SaintS|> are

remembred at the throne of Grace^ every day by thofe that

J pray for the welfare of the Church^and particularly in thofe

I prayers which are made for his blefling upon hisOrdinan-

i ces.

And laflly,it's no fmall priviledge to have that Scale be- Ohja&.i
flowed upon the in their /^;/4;?t:;y,which they vmy afterwards
plead when they 2ivcgro\v;^ and come to fulfill the condition.

But if their being capable of the fpirituall part^muflin-
title them to theoutwardfign, why then doe we not alfb
admit them to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which
is the feat of the Covenant of Grace^2LS well as the Sacrament
of Bapcilm ? And this is urged the rather,becaufe(fay they) **
the Infants of the ^ewes did eate of the Paffeover^ as well as
were circumcifed-, now if our Infants have every way as
large a priviledge as the Infants o( the ^em had, then can
wee not deny them the fame priviledge which their Infants
bad^and confequcntly chey mud partake of the one Sacra-
ment^as wellas the other.

I anlwer, that Infants are capable of the grace of Bap- Anfm
tifme , we are fure, not fure that they are capaplc of the
grace figned and fcaled in the Sacrament of the Lords Suf-
fers for though both of them are feales of the New Cove-
nant, ycf it is with fomc difference ^ Baptifme properly
{j^At^xkittntranceintoit^ the Lords Supper, properly the
growth i noun foment znii augmentation of it •^ Baptif m for out
birth^ the Lords Supper tor ovvitood-^ now Infants may
bee ^^r^ again while they arc Infants, have their OriginaH
fm pardoned, h^^ united to Chrift, have his /;»^^^ftampt
upon them, but concerning the exercife of thcfe graces and
the augmentation of them in Infants, while they arc Infants,

H the

J J ASttmnpfthi Baf tiding $f infrnts.

tbe Scripture is altogether filent, and for what is faid con-
cerning the lafants of the ^ems eating the Pajfeover, to
which our Sacrament of the Lords Supper doth fucceed,
there IS no fuch thing mentioned in all the Book of God;
it is faid indeed that the feverall families were to cate their
Lambe, if the houfehold were not too little for it, and that
when their children fliould ask them what that fervice
meant ,thcy (hould inftruifi them about the meaning of it*
but no word injoping , nor any example witnefling, that
their little children did eat of it. If they lhy(as fome of them
doej that ^A^y? little ones, who s^ttzzHo, to enquire coticer^
ning the meaning oi that fervice, and capable to receive in-
ftruclion about it, did cat of the PaflTeover with their Pa-
rents % I anfwer/although the Scripture f peaks nothingof
their eating,yetifthat be granted) it is no prejudice to us,
becaufe the Gofpel prohibites not frch yong ones from the
Lords Supper, who are able io examine themjehes^ auddif-
cerne the Lords Body,

Thus have I according to my poor ability made good this
fccond argument alfo,and vindicated it from all objedions
of- any weight which 1 have met withall to the contrary, it
remains that I winde up al!5with a briefe Application,

And firft it ferves for juft reproofe of the Anabaptifts,
and all iijch as by their ra(h and bloody fenrcnce condemn
Infants, as out of the ftate of Gface 5 it's a great finne to
pafle ftntcnce upon af>y pxircicular perfon for any one aft,
as was that of £//, concerning Hannah^ how much more
feeinous. is it to condemns all the Infants of the whole
Church of Chrift, a3 having nothing to doe with the Co-
venant of Grace, or the feale of icr Wee read o? Herod
the Tyfanc, that he deftroyed all the children in Bethlehem^
a^dthe Qoftfti'ihereof from two years old and under ^ is
hot thi$> fatre more crudl fentence. to fct thefe in no
bcttcrfticetheii Pagans and InMd^^Withm Chrifi^diem

f rem the Common-w/alth oflfraH, as ftrAngers^mthe Cove^
mnt offrem'tfc^ having no hopCy and without God in the porld }
Can any fobcrChriftian think this a fmall fault ? Ourblef-
fed Saviour faith , // is not law full to take the Children*
bread and give it to ^d^^r^but thefe men take Children^ztiAm
their judgement, conclude them for no better thenyiP^^ -,
^/rw/wi is the bread of the Lord, which he would have gi-
ven to his children, and to deny it to them as none of their
right, is to make them no better then dogs. The Prophet
EIj}\u wept when he looked upon ffal{ael, becaufc he tore-
faw that he would dafli tiie infants of //r^^/againflthe wall,
and even ^4^4^/ thought hi mfelf worthy to be efteemed a
dog if ever he Ihould do fuch a thing. But certainly^thus to
dafh all Infant children of beleeversoutol the Covenqint of
Grace, (as much as in them lyethj & to deprive them of the
feale of it, is in a fpirituall fenfe farre more heavy. And
I dare appeale to the tender bowels of any belecving Pa-
rents, whether it were not cafier for them to thinic thic
their />?/4/?/ifhould be dafliedagainft the ftones, and yet^
the mean time to die under Chrifts wing^ as viilblc Mem-
bers of his Kingdome, Church and Family, rather then to
have them live, and behold them to have a vifiblc {landing
onlj'in the Kingdom of the Devill ; Thefe -men kn6v(rnoc
how much they provoke Chrifts difpleafure againft them-
ftlves •, Hee was greatly difplcafed with his own JDifciples
for forbidding liclc children to come unto him-,and one day
fuch racn will know, that he is much more difpleafed with
them, w^ho with fo great violence oppofe the bringing
of bcleevers children unto his holy Sacrament, that with
unfpeakable wu*ong, injury, and (lander, they profccutc
all the Miniftcrs of Chrift, who give Infants this their due,
caaderaoing them for Miniftersof Antichrift, and iimbes
of'lheBeafts yea, fame of them proceeding fo farre, as
cpndeaming all the Churches of Chrift, to bee l|o Chur-

H 2 chcs.

- . A Sermon of the Bafti^n^ of Infants.

r ^ ches, who Caft not their children one of the Covenant of

Gracc,and the feale of it, and doe cry out upon the Bapti-
zing of Z^/^^^^, asone ofthofe great finncs which bring
and continue all our judgements upon us. The Apoftatc
Empcrour Julian is juftly cryed out upon for his cruelty
againft the Chriftians, for denying to their hddies humane
Sepulture •, how nauch more cruell is it to deny to thefouls
of Infants the juft priviledge and benefit of the Covenant
of Graced Weknowhedid it ©uc of hatred to Chriftianity,
which I am farre from charging upon thefe men 5 but if
we compare the fentence andfadlof the one with thfeo-
thcr, we{hallfinde the latter (bee their principle what it
will) farre more injurious to the Church of Chrift then
the other ; The Lord in mercy give them to fee how unjuft
that fentence, and how heavy that doom is,which they thus
paffe^not only upon Infant children, bat upon all the Chur-
ches of Chrift',and ferioufly to confiderjwhethcr the Lord,
who once in his difpleafure threatned to da(h their Infants
f .isigainft the Stones, who hajd dafht the Infants of the chil-

Pfai. 131.8,9. drenofi/r/i^/ againft the ft ones, willindureit at the hands
of any to expunge the Seed of the faithfuU out of his Covc-
nantjand to drive them from his City and Kingdom after
this audi manner. i , ^

Z//e2. ' Secondly, how much may this comfort the Soule ofc-
To Parents. Very bclceving Parent, to behold this great love and good-
\ neflc of God in his Covenant of Grace to them and their
^otiheif com- p^jj^^j^j^y^ that nQt oqly themfelvcs, but even their Infiants
for their fakes5fl|PMl4 be reckon^dto the houfehold of God,
put into the Ark, wrapped up in a Covenant of Love,
brought under the wingof God? When God had pfomifcd
to Bavidy that hee ihpuld have a Son to whom God would
|)eij;j.t^thcr^;and that all his,pofterity fliould after luciha
gracious i^arincr be regarded, his heart was even raviflicd 1
witJijtji) ipr^^Gc^;^ what am I, and^wha is mj

A Sermon of the Bapti^ng of Infants. y ^

;/ ^oufcy that thou haft brought met hitherto f 4^d this tv/ff yet a i Samj.
I finall thing in thy fight^O LordCod^ hut t^ou haft fpoken alfo
f- ofthyfervdmshoujeforagreatwhiktocome^ and is this the
^ manner of men^ O Lord God f And even fo (hould Chriftian
•\ Parents break outinto admiration of his goodnelTe, in ta-
king their children into that gracious Covenant, which is
not oncly the womb and veflell, but alfo the well-head of
fo many mercies, which are terminated, not in thcmfclves,
but flow down to their poftcrity from generation to genera-
tion.

And this is yet more admirable in our eyes^when wee ie-
riouflyconfider, how unclean and filthy, how viperous a
brood they are, as proceeding out of our loines, empty of
all goodnelTe, full of all wickednefTe, an unclean Leprofic
having befpread them from the crown of the Head to the
fole of the Foot, fit onely to bee caft into the open Ficld,to Efa.i 6.
the loathing oftheirperfons, in the day that they are born, Ezek.16,5.
as all the reft of the world are 5 and that God fhould let
his heart upon fuch as theft, to take them thus ncere unto
Him{clf,whcn he palTes by both Parents and Infants of all
the world befide,how would our hearts melt in his praifes^if
wee could confider thefe things ?
2. How fhould this ingage all Chriftian Parents to look 2.
\ iothe education of their children, to bring them up in the Forrheirdi
' nurture and fear of the Lord 'f Its a wofull thing to conli- \l I'^l^^^
. dcnhQ n^rached care/ej/7€fje oi mzny Paixnts '^ yea, not one- forthtirca
( lycarelcfneire^but/^;;^^//;?^//^ of many Parents 5 who pro- If,["e^^a|f''
ftitute their children to the Devi/i and his fervice, aftej? they EzekfiVs.
h2LWt confecrated t:hcm to Chrift by baptifm-, trairi them up P^'a^.^o^s:
inignorance,profanene{re,&c. To whom God may fay,
ashecdidtothatHarlot,£;2:.^Li5.r^^/<jA^/? t^kenmy Sons
and my Daughter j.^vff horn thou haS born unto mee^and thefe thou
ifaftfacriftced unto Devils. A generation of : wi^Jtched; in^n,
who take more Cace of their liSii'^^ and X»^^4 Ihcn tbeydoe

of

i

<| A StrmdH ef the Bjfts\trtg $f Inf4nts.

of tbcit I/ffdntt immorcall foulcs, nourilTiing the former^
murckring the latter j that we may fay of them, as Auga^
flus did ofHerod^ that it is hrttcr to bee Herods Hog then his
Son. I have of en heard a fad Story of a wretched Woman
who perfwaded her Daughter to yecldto the iuftof a rich
\ man^ in hope he woiild marry her, ashee had promifed to
doc-, which (hedid, andprefently after fell fick and dyed-,
The wretched mother hereupon grew diftraCled, and in her
madoeffe cryed out, 0 my Daughters fcule^ my Daughters
Joule y I have damned mj Daughters foule : Verily, thus may
many Parents cry out upon themlclves for murthcring their
Childrens foulcs-, and their Children may wi(h that
they had been cither Dogges, or Swine, rather then
their Sons or Daughters •, miierable children, of milerable
PaTentsJ what will fuch Parents anfwcr God, whenhee
comes to demand his children of them i Suppofe a Prince
or Nobk man fliould put a Childe to Nurle unto fome
mean man,and pay them well for the education of it*, or
rather fuppofe a great man (liould adopt the child of a poor
man to be hisown^and lliould fay unto this poore man, as
i 2..19. Pharadhs daughter faid to Mojes wother^ BringMf tiis ChiUe
for me^andlxviligive thee thy wages*, and afterward comming
to fcethtschildc,lliould find they had lamed the childe,and
txught ic nothing but to fpeak evill of them, and to fight
agaiaft them; "think I pray you what they would fay,
ordocto this wretched man. How much more abomina*
ble is the fin of many Parents, who by their owncarekf-
ncffe; and vileexample, leaven theirchildren with princi^
pies, .'md lead them in wayes quite contrary to the Cove-
nant of grace, tending to nothing, but todillionour God,
and to their own deftrudion. If any of you have been
guilty of it intime paft,bc deeply bunibkdiarit,'Cravien>cr-
-^y and pardon •, ^nd for time to come^indeavbur to doe tiie
part of a mtfn^ FMerot Mother f or Chiift, looking upon

thy

A Sermon efthe Baftizirg of Infants. «-

thy children, as being Chrifts more then thine, yea, as
not being thine 5 but Chrifts, to whom thou haft
confecrated them^ and therefore (as wife and loving
Nurfes ulc to doe; carry them often to their Father for his
bleffing , and hee will blelTe them , and reward thee
d[o'^ wcfindeinthefecondof^i?^/, that in the day of their
Faft, they were to bring their children and fet them before M2.i^.
the Lerd^ that hee might bee moved to compailion for the
Childrcns fake, whom hee ufed to call his own ^ let thou
thy Children often before him, intreate him as Jojefh
did \{\s father iox his two fonnes, and as they did our Savi-
our, CM ark. 10, that hee woMfut his hands uf on them And
blejfe them •, Doe it heartily, humbly, frequently,tell him
how dcare they are to thee, and the dearer, becaufc heis
pleafedtoown them, tell him their wants, and thy own
inability to lupply them in any thing, and how eafieit is^
for him to doe it by his Spirit and Grace-, oh that Ijhmad
might live in thy fight y fai*d Abraham ♦, Say thou ib alfb^
Lord kt thcfe children live before thee, thine they are^ and
thou gave/l them mee to^bring uf fsr thee^ Oh bliffe my labiur
amongthem^ aid make them fuch as thou rvouldejt have them
to bee.

And doe not onely pray for them, but difcipJine them and »T,m.i.5^?,
inflru^ them, acquainting them with the Script.ircs, and *^*
Catecbifing them in the Principles of Religion ; as the
Mother and Graadmother of Timothy did him. Training
him Hp from his infancy, in the knowledge of the holy Scriptwe^
and bee afiured, if thy children may learn from thee to
knowtht'it heavenly Father, to beleeve in him, to /t^x^^him,
and feare him betimes, that being taught the trade inthtir
youth,theymAynotfoffakeitmhentheyare eld: they will then
more bleffe God for thee,then ifthoucouldcft leave them-
all the world for their inhcrkance-, it was for f^i^ that So-
/iw^;? gloried in ^/^ father and mothcr^r^Wo.^, 2^3. and for pj© v. 4.2,3;

ihk '

^ ^8 : ASerwonof the Bafti^ng$f Infants*

■ this will thy children rifeupandcdll thetbleffed. Thus {halt
thou approve thy felf a true £or\<^iAbraham'^ Thus fhall thy
children be bleffed with faithful! Abraham-^ Thus (hall the
Covenant, the fpirituall part and benefit ofit,^ well as the
outwardj reft upon thy pofterity from generation to genera-
tion.
3* . Thirdly^ andlaftly. This ferves for ufeto all children
edone's^^^^" w^hom God honours (o farre, as in their Infancy to bring
I. * thus near unto himlclf 5 and to ufe them thus as his owne,
por comfort and that three leverall way es •, Firft, to incourage and com-

'€ve"and re^^' /^''^ ^^^ ^^^ upon him, for all the

pent. good things whicti hee hath promifed in the Covenant of

Grace, The Papifts, as in fome things they give and af-
cribe too much to Bapdime, making it to take awayorigi-
nall finne, exopere operato: So in other things they rob
Gods people ofthe comfortable ufe e?//>5 becaufe they fay
that when once wee commit aftuall finnes wee make {hip-
wrack of Baptifm, and then Penance muft bee fecunda tabula
pojl naf*fragwmy a Cockboat after our jQiipw.rack •, but this
blcfTed Sacrament ferves for a more durable and comforta-
ble ufe, even to bee an -^^^5 as my Text cals it, to carry
to Heaven. Know then that whenfoever thou findeft thy
lelf at a loffe, fenfible of thy undone condition , findelt
thy guilt, and filth, and bondage, through {inne, and
flyeft unto Chrift, and thy Confcience witneffcth with
thee, that thouwouldcft walk for time to come, accor-
ding to the rule of the Covenant, in uprightnefTe^ to make
God in Chrift thy portion, and his word thy guide-. So
i?//r^;?Ifay, asthoudoefttliis, mayeft thou fiy to thy Baf-
tifme^ and plead it for thy comtort,as wee may plead the
Rainbow in foule weather againft the worlds deftrudion by
water. I have often heard a ftory of a great Queen, who
gave a Ring to a Nobleman, while hec was her Favourite,
and willed him to fend it to her when hee {hould ftand in

great-

A Sermon of the Baptizing of Infants. ^p

greatcft need of her favour-,who afterward falling Into her
difplcafure,fent the Ring, which through the treachery of
the bearer was not delivered till it was too late : But it fliall
never happen lb to thce^do^ thou in all thy extremity^fliew
or fend by the hand of faith thy ^^ii/^, which God hath gi-
von thee^plead it confidently,and to thy dying day, it may
be an Ark unto thy foule in all cafes oi reUpfe^ dcfertion,
temptation, or whatever elfe may betide thee, upon the re-
newing of thy repentance and faith in Chrift Jefus,

Secondly, This great love of God in taking us thus j^ ,^'
ncare into his own Family, as his own Cnildren,(hould fuch"swaifc
make many of us blufh, to remember our mworthj conver- unworthy of
fmion^ in times f aft '^ yea, it might make our very hearts to ^^'^ priviicdi
bleed^ and make us not only will) we had been unhafti^td^
h\Xitvtr\unborny rather then to pollute the holy Covenant,
andthefealc of it, as we have done with our unhallowed
lives: Can it ftem a light thing in our eyes,that when God
hath left the greateft part of the world, as ftrangers from
his Family and Kingdom jto be under Satans kingdom, and
taken us (no better by nature than they are) to be hispc-
culiar oncs,into Covenant with him^thac hec (hould fwear
unto us, to be our God, and hitherto to train us up under
fuch heavenly Ordinances, and wc to walk in the mean
time as rebels and enemies unto him, like the unbaptized
world ? can we think our condemnation not to be greater
then theirs ^ Let me a little reafon the cafe with you. Doe
you know into what a Covenant the Lord hath taken you.<*
what he hath done for you, and expcfts from you ^ have
not your Minifters and Parents inftrudted you in it < Now
tell me what is the reafon of your unanfwerable conver-
lation, isitbecaufcyou renounce the Covenant, as being
made when you underftood it not? if fo, that you do in-
deed renounce it^ Jakt jojtr courfe, ferve the Cod yot$ h^ve
$t§j0y yettdlmeeClbefeech you) what iniquity is in the

I * Lords

• ^ - ^ i

.5o A Sermon oftheBafti'^ngdf Infants.

Lords Covenant cf what hurt is therein ic^ what dtfad-
vantagc have you met withall < or r^here and how doe you
hope to finde better things^then God to he your Father ^Chri(i
^eftisto bee your Saviour ^xht Spirit to bee your Comforter ?
CO hnwcyourjins fardonedmd healed^ to be adopted^ juffifjed^
fanBifyedy^ndcvcxYwzycomfortably provided for here, and
favedfor ever < Doe the Gods you have chofen to fcrve
provide better things then thefe, that you renounce Chrift
for their fakes ^r If you fay, God forbid you fhould re-
nounce Chrift, -, N o, y o u hope to bee Cived by Ghrifr, as
well as any other : Then tell mc in goofd fadneflfe, doe you
e»pe(flthat Chrift ihouldftand bound to perform his fart
of the Covenant^and you left at liberty for. your pare ^ that
he ikmxldkve you^ znijmJjate him': that^^ fliopid beeyoui;
(^Qd^m^you remain the Devils fervant? tha^ )^^i1totdcfpi^6-
vidc;Heaven for you, and jf^// walk in the way which fcad^
to hell i O how much are you deceived ! t tell you he hath
fworn the contracy,he hach heaped up tribulation and wrath
for every foule which doth evill, for th^^ewfr/l^ior die
bapti^dfrfi^'md you will one day findejthat /^ hacPbeerr fit-
ter you had never lived in his houfe^ nor been trained uf mder
his Covenantythen thus to profane it^andmaketheblood of it ^ as
an unholy thing, .. . < = - * • ^ i

ro^voke to Thirdly^this great priviledgefliouldlngagekafl feir time
ioi^Hfc for° to come, to make our Baptifma continuall motive to art an-
Retocome. fwerable converfation to live as men who aredcadnnrdfin,
and alive unto God 5 to account that it ought to bee as
ftrange> to lee a baptized man walk in a- finfulh courf^,
as to fee a SveBrum^ a walking Ghoft; Wee are bu-
0I.1.1** rjedwitbchriji in Baptifme '^ and how can rvee-wh-a are^dedd
to finne live any longer therein t We are planted into hirfa-
itttly> made his Children, havehis Spirit dwelling in us-
yea,, thereby ntado one with Chi\&: AU^hhJ^\ifd^^^
xoy by OUT Es^tifm, (hall riotliHs-mforCe us td Irvi aitf^i

rablyf

^ A Sermon of the Bapti:{ing of Infants.

rably^ X/^^^rtds a Scoryofa gracious Virgin, who iifed
to get the viftory over Satan when he tempted her to any
finnc, Satan I may not doe it , Baptizata fum, / am Bafti-
:{ed^ and muft walk accordingly : So fhould we argue^Lct
bale perfonslive bafcly^noble and generous men muft live
nobly •, let Turks and Pagans live wickedly, the holy feed
muft live holily and rightcoufly : keepe it daily in thy
thoughts, what thy Baptifm ingageth the^ unto, and that if
thou walk otherwife^it will rife up extrcamly to aggravate
thy condemnation in the laft day. It was a cuftome in the
latter end ofthe Primitive times. That fuch as were bap-
tized, did weare a white Stole ( a humane Ceremony, to
fignifie their purity of life which the baptized was to lead,
Fulgentes ammas vejlis quoque Candida fignat.) Now there
was one Blpidophorm^ who after his baptifm turned a per-
fecutor y CHuritta the Minifter who baptized him, brought
forth in publick the white Stole which Blfidof horns had
worn at his Baptifm, and cryedunto him^ oElpidopho-
rus ! this Stole doe Ikeep againftthjcommingto judgement ^to
tejiifie thy i^pofiafiefrom Chrifit, doe thou m like manner aC-
fure thy felf,the very Font wherein thou waft baptized, the
Regifter wherein thy name is recorded, will rife up againft
thee,if thou lead not a holy life : The Covenant is holy,thc
Sealeis holy, let thefe provoke thee to ftudy to be holy,yea
to draw holineffe from them. Gonfider what I fay, And the
Lord give yoti mderfianding in all things.

FINIS.